Wikipedia:Featured article review/Convair B-36/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.
Review commmentary
[edit]- Messages left at aircraft, Military aviation task force, and MilHist Gzkn 11:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Additional message at Ingoolemo. Sandy (Talk) 04:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs quite a bit of reworking to continue to be considered Featured. It is bloated, somewhat poorly written, and not particularly well referenced. The time has come to either rewrite it or revoke the status. Karl Dickman talk 11:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lacks inline citations, none in the history section. The website references are not formatted properly, use {{cite web}} or similar. The lead is too short to adequately summarize the article. Jay32183 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC short lead, mostly uncited, incorrectly formatted references, unaddressed. Sandy (Talk) 01:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are writing (1a), bloating (4), and citations (1c). Marskell 17:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Precious little has been done to improve this article. 1a and 2a are problems.
- "mass-produced"—US editors wouldn't hyphenate unless a double attributive.
- "Although there have been larger military aircraft, they have all been transports."—The last word seems informal, jargonistic or vague.
- "Prior to"—Why Latin, when "before" is perfectly good?
- Metric equivalents for 96% of the world's population?
- Stubby paragraphs.
- It could be fixed, but where are the contributors? Tony 05:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove FA status per Marskell. Lacks citations (and the vast majority are other websites of various quality and verifiability), bloated, a lot of fluffy language. I went through and dropped {{fact}} tags. - Emt147 Burninate! 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove After comparing the article now to its state when it got FA status, I had to change my mind. The article now is bloated and not as well written. It would take a lot of work to fix it I think.Patrick Berry 16:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.