Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mercantilism/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 by User:Marskell 15:07, 19 November 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified: WP:BUSINESS, WP:HISTORY, SimonP.
I just want to see if this article is still Featured article material. Right off the bat, I can see that the lead has more than four paragraphs, which I believe exceeds the limit, according to WP:LEAD. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure on other things about the article, but I personally wouldn't consider a long lead to be a reason to bring it to FAR. That can be rewritten fairly painlessly; the lead just needs to be summarized further. It probably would have been more productive to bring this issue to the article's talk page or a related WikiProject before bringing it here. Issues like referencing and such require much more time so I'd consider those to be better reasons to bring the article to FAR—that may very well be the case here. Gary King (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That too. :D -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 05:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for a lot of people. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it definitely is an issue, its a very big article to have 24 citations and that's it, so there are a horde of statements without citation in this article that need addressing, so this should stay here, for long lead and very small number of citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. So that's fine. Gary King (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it definitely is an issue, its a very big article to have 24 citations and that's it, so there are a horde of statements without citation in this article that need addressing, so this should stay here, for long lead and very small number of citations. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Otherwise, it's just a waste of time for a lot of people. Gary King (talk) 05:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That too. :D -- SRE.K.A
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 13:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per the issues highlighted by Marskell (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added back a section deleted by a vandal, and a section heading to cut off the lead earlier [2]. It addresses some of the structural problems, but the citation needed tags still need clearing. Minor point: the picture of "Merchants" in Venice seems extraneous, given that Venice is not otherwise mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. No active improvement since my edits a week ago [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 1c YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.