Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scout Association of Hong Kong/archive1
- 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 Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Scout Association of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Wimvandorst, HenryLi, WikiProject Scouting
I am nominating this featured article for review because after finding it in a CCI, I had a hunch to check all the reference rather than just the modifications done by the user in question. What I found was a rather high level of very close paraphrasing, and some copyvio, where there were whole sentences lifted from sources. The further I got the more issues I found with the article, and the copyright issues are serious enough to warrant removal of FA status. On top of that, many parts are unsourced and there are areas where the language was poor, generally around the areas that I found copyright issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Queen's Scout (Scout Association of Hong Kong).png has a fair-use rational, but none for this article. File:Scout Association of Hong Kong 1950s-1980s.svg has no caption. The referencing is rather thin in places, with none whatsoever in the #Air Scouts section. Chris857 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In its current state, this is not FA level. PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the degree of referencing question, the other noted questions seem not deep rooted. Noting the items with close paraphrasing problems would lead to an easy fix, as well as prose. Whether or not degree of referencing is an issue should be discussed. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern FA standards require everything be ref'd, at least one per paragraph. A whole section un ref'd is no longer acceptable.PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.png){kind=link}
FARC commentary
[edit]- Featured article criteria brought up in the review section include copyright violations and close paraphasing, lack of referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, the copyvios have been taken care of but there are still lots of very short paragraphs, questionable tables and very many unreferenced sections. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, no improvement since FAR began. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) and Wizardman (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 08:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.