Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sociocultural evolution/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 16:48, 25 November 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified users: User:Goethian, User:Slrubenstein, User:Pariah, User:DCDuring, User:Tynansanger
- WP Sociology notified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it is well written and reasonably comprehensive, this 2005 FA has fallen behind its brethren. Poor verifiability and a raft of style issues (tone, organization, length) need to be addressed before this can be called the very best work of wikipedia. Madcoverboy 14:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the nominator please make sure that relevant parties are notified as per FAR nomination instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 15:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did notify the appropriate parties but I didn't update this page. This has now been updated. Madcoverboy 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I knew this day would come. I will add this to my 'to do' list, but I could really really really use some help on this one.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to help as I am interested in the topic, but I am not familiar with the literature. A willingness to change doesn't alter the fact that it's likely not FA material. Madcoverboy 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should still be comprehensive and well-written; what it lacks are inline citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy to help as I am interested in the topic, but I am not familiar with the literature. A willingness to change doesn't alter the fact that it's likely not FA material. Madcoverboy 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are too many sections which require sourcing to allow this article to be a FA. Gothbag 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt's a messy article, I admit, but I feel it should stay as a FA in a scaled back sense. The problem is there are too many variations over the course of centuries. I'd be willing to start an article on Contemporary Cultural Evolution in the Boyd/Richardson sense, but I'm not sure how exactly it should be properly ormatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tynansanger (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are verifiability (1c), style issues (2), organization and length (4). Marskell 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove - per nom. --Peter Andersen (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per nom. Loads of problems. For an example of lack of attention to the details of prose, see "20th-century approaches" and "20th century approaches", and "aimed at provide" in the lead. For an example of content problems, see the first figure, which doesn't help our readers to understand the caption one bit. Tony (talk) 14:03, 24 November 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.