Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tea/archive1

Tea

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology. Sandy 22:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No necessarily a bad article by any stretch. Tea was given its staus back in the "brilliant prose" days, before the current FA system was put into place. Article decay and increasing FA standards have progressed such that the article no longer truly fits in among its FA peers. The prose is choppy in parts, and the text suffers from "list-itis" and is occasionally ordered oddly, and there is a serious lack of references. – Clockwork Soul 22:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've copy-edited the lead to demonstrate that a good deal needs to be done on the prose if this article is to retain its status. Tony 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Move to FARC. The diff since Tony's copy edit shows no improvement, and the introduction of an unreferenced statement to the lead. No progress, no one working on it. Sandy 16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're right. I don't have the time to pour into it now that the semester's started, and it really doesn't belong on the FA roster in its curent state. – Clockwork Soul 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think since the days when Tea was featued the information content of the article improved greatly. I would say too much, as it led people to removing big part of Tea to Tea culture, unfortunately without leaving anything decent in "Tea culture" section of Tea.
I can help with facts, unfortunately I can't help with cleaning of languge and style.
The references ... I don't think that's so critical. Judging by numer pf references per character maybe, but IMO most of the article should really summarize more detailed articles, for example the paragraph about Green tea should be based on Green tea article, where most of references should go. --Wikimol 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that first, unreferenced sentence is not well expressed, I fear: "Tea is the second most popular beverage in the world (the most popular is water)." Better as "Tea is the second most popular beverage in the world after water." FARC, I'd say. Tony 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also question the merits of the section "The word tea", considering that it actually concerns information on the etymology of words for tea in languages other than English and is really just a list disguised as prose. Peter ^Isotalo 16:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and inline citations. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Not featured quality. Punctured Bicycle 17:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, original author dones't have the time to fix it and nobody else seems to be wokring on it.--Peta 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per previous two reviewers and my comments above. Tony 05:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Issues not addressed during FAR. Sandy 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]