Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870/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 19:48, 5 January 2008.
Review commentary
[edit]This is my first time nominating an article for Review, so hopefully I've gotten this right. Okay, I'm nominating this article for review because it doesn't meet the Featured article criteria #1 (Neutrality) and #2 (In line citations). This article has been nominated for review before, but only for neutrality reasons due to the fact that it was nominated before inline citations were an absolute must in featured articles. This article is definitely not neutral and has no inline citations whatsoever. I'm going to contact the creator and nominator about this review. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the creator was an IP, so I only contacted the nominator and the article's talk page. Spawn Man (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator hasn't edited since 15 October, so may or may not know about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify the two WikiProjects listed on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified. :) Spawn Man (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are neutrality (1d) and citations (1c). Marskell (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - per nom. No work done. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a piece of the 1911 Britannica, as many of our articles are; originally part of the History of Cape Colony. The neutrality concerns on the talk page consist largely of the use of Kaffir, when Xhoza would be more civil; this has been fixed. Beyond that there is some mention of such phrases as the enemy were beaten back, which is certainly a British perspective; but the same phrase can be found, for the same reasons, on many of the articles on the Napoleonic Wars. (It has better excuse here; it is very likely that there is no Xhoza account of that battle.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Issues from the lead on down and no significant work. Even the definition of the historical period in the first sentence isn't sensibly explained. Marskell (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2008 (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.