Wikipedia:Featured article review/World War I/archive4

World War I

Article is still a featured article

I am resubmitting this article for WP:FARC. The comments below were left over 3 weeks ago, and little attempt has been made to resolve them:

NOTE: This article has 65KB of prose as of 15 June 2006. See Wikipedia:Summary style

• 2(a) *The article needs copyediting so that the prose is well-written. The lead already has an error: after 1917), defeated the comma is not needed here. (Also, I think lasting should be that lasted, as it was in the past).
• 2(c) The article is missing inline citations; 5 WP:FOOTNOTEs in a 87 kb is certainly too little. Specifically, figures should be cited; also, I'm worried about the presence of weasel words. (see WP:AWT). Some examples:
  • is considered by many historians as the founding myth of Canada.
  • Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists
  • Many people believed that the war heralded
• 3 Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years without full dates should not be linked generally, while years with full dates should be linked (full dates should also be linked).
• 3 The   (no-break space) should be used between numbers and their units of measurements, per WP:MOSNUM
• 3(a) The lead does not conform to guidelines presented at WP:LEAD (it should be from 3-4 paragraphs) and fails to summarize the article.
• 3(c) The ToC is too lengthy
• 4 Image:Sarajevo Attentat.jpg, Image:GermanTrenchNearTheMazuricLakesOnTheEasternFront.jpg, Image:Wilson announcing the break in the official relations with Germany.jpg, Image:Trencheswwi2.jpg, and Image:JohnMcCraeportrait.jpg have obsolete image copyright tags
• 5 At 87 kb, this article will need to use Wikipedia:Summary style. There are many subpages; however content should still be cut down more.

Andy _t 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Remove; uses inconsistant referencing. Entire sections go un-referenced. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment re: 2(c) - per previous agreement on this page, articles which were promoted to FA status prior to the requirement of inline citations can't be demoted because they don't have adequate references, as long as they do have references of some sort, and it appears that this article has extensive references. I'll have a look at the rest of the objections, though. The Disco King 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment re: 3(a) - The only guideline related to length is that it be less than 4 paragraphs. The 3-4 paragraph length is only a proposed guideline and is phrased as a suggestion so shouldn't be held against the article. However, the lead does need improvement which may add paragraphs. (Like what started the war, who won, casualties, medical/technological advances, etc) --Bobblehead 22:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This nomination is very misguided. Apart from the lead, which can be easily fixed anyway, there is almost nothing for which to indict this article.UberCryxic 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. While there are some issues, none of them justify a FA removal. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm... I just pointed out 7 of the 11 attributes listed on Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. Andy _t 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. As far as I know, we haven't yet moved to the stage of defeaturing articles for a deficiency in footnotes (many FAs don't have any). The lead can be easily expanded, and while 87K is rather long, WWI is one of the most important events in human history; if anything deserves a longer article, it does. Everything else is an obscure (and controversial, in some cases!) point of style or formatting; these are at best minor quibbles, not reasons to defeature an article! Kirill Lokshin 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think I've dealt with a few of your concerns - see this diff. I've addressed your concerns with WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOSNUM (although there were only a few measurements), and tried to trim the ToC by transwikiing the quotes section to Wikiquotes, making all the subheadings in the "References" section bold text, and moving "Other Names" to the lead (although that was reverted; I'm gonna hammer it out on the talk page). Copyrights and fair use policy are a little confusing to me still, but I'll give that a look as well. Furthermore, I'll try to peck away at the copyediting and spinning off to daughter articles. (BTW: I'm a strong Keep as I don't think any of these problems merit demotion; they are problems, however, and they do need to be addressed.) Cheers! The Disco King 15:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also - the last image on your list is gone from the article - it left with the "Quotes" section. Cheers! The Disco King 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, vast majority of the concerns listed above are minor copyediting issues. The inline citations could be improved but at the moment the lack of specific citations is not a reason to remove. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per above. -- Chris Lester ^talk 15:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)