Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Niagara Falls/archive1

Add links
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 18:06, 14 July 2007.

Niagara Falls

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Messages left at New York State, Canada, Rivers, and Waterfalls. Marskell 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Message left at User talk:Sfahey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are three occurrences of {{unsourced}} on this article. Furthermore, there are {{fact}} tags everywhere, which are not supposed to appear anywhere on any featured article. Because of these deficiencies, it is not factually accurate and could have original research. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · ER 4 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • <Large sig file above> Per instructions here, please use {{subst:FARMessage|Niagara Falls}} to notify the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the article history), and any relevant WikiProjects of this review. You can see examples of notifications on other FARs on this page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The lack of inline citations is rather frightening and inappropriate for a featured article. Listing sources simply as "Encyclopedia Britannica," for example, is wholly unhelpful. ~ UBeR 20:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we reading the same article? Of the 22 footnotes, 21 cite sources - none the Britannica. They are not the best sources, in many cases; but little of this is challenged, or likely to be challenged. The Britannica is cited as one of the general sources; and doubtless it was. But it would be difficult to spot a sentence which depends solely on it now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unsettling that most of this article is not sourced. The extensive (and informative) Formation section has only three inline cites, even though it contains such statements as "Some controversy exists over which European first gave a written, eyewitness description of the Falls", and "There is credible evidence, however . . . .", with no supporting reference. The next section, Impact on industry and commerce, is similarly sparse in citations despite a huge amount of information. Much of the balance of the article suffers from the same problem. I'm surprised it was rated FA.
It might be a good idea to initiate an intensive effort to take each section and source it with inline cites as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Otherwise much of it should be deleted since it has been tagged for nearly seven months with little or no improvements.
—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and factual accuracy (1c). Marskell 11:15, 14 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Niagara_Falls/archive1&oldid=1138477494"