Wikipedia:Featured article review/T-34/archive1

T-34

Lacks references. ~ UBeR 17:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this is currently on the main page. WP:FAR talk page consensus discourages listing articles currently on the mainpage, as improvements often occur following a mainpage stay. I have already removed this FAR once, don't want to engage in a revert war, so am leaving it listed at FAR even though consensus disallows it. There is apparently massive confusion resulting from the use of Harvard referencing - the article has inline citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one person agreed in the "Main page and promotion timing" discussion. Just because an article is on the main page does not mean it should not be scrutinized for its blatant flaws; in fact, it should require even more dire attention. ~ UBeR 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much older consensus :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly doesn't lack references. I think you mean inline citations. And on that basis, it definitely fails 1c. Green451 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basis is on these two paramount Wikipedia policies: WP:V and WP:NOR. ~ UBeR 18:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of uncited facts in that article and as such it is not verifiable. I am astounded that it made it to FA status and then was chosen to be listed on the front page. The article is not FA quality, in my opinion. - PocklingtonDan 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history has at least six FAs at FAR, and can now count this one among the tally. Perhaps people can take such facts into consideration before nominating for FAR? Additionally, no offence to anyone, but I'm going to say it based on experience - in 2-3 weeks most people will have forgotten about this article, and should any editors be seeking help and advice it'll likely be the FAR regulars trying to help out, even though FAR has quite a backlog. LuciferMorgan 18:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is not up to FA quality, it shouldn't be tagged as FA. That's not the fault of people pointing this out (don't shoot the messenger) its the fault of whoever promoted them to FA status when they were not of sufficient quality (see my post at FAC's talk page regarding uneven FAC reviews) and its the fault of a lack of a good system of maintaining FA quality, such as regular reviews of FA articles. To suggest that people are doing something wrong by pointing out that some FA articles do not meet the FA critera is absurd. You should be able to nominate ana rticle for FA if it meets the criteria, and nominate it for unlisting if it subsequently fails the criteria, or else the FA flag on an article is worthless - PocklingtonDan 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this from FAR, just for a few days. There's no messanger-shooting—by all means this should be reviewed. But it's useless to do so the day it appears on the main page, which is basically a day of vandal reverts. This is followed by a couple of days of generally increased activity on the page as people talk things over—let's let that happen and then we can start the review. We've established consensus for this previously on FAR talk and I'm going to update the instructions accordingly. Marskell 19:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]