Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January to March 2005

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newer nominations are at the top.


Kept status

[edit]

India

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

The standards for Wikipedia's featured articles are of a much higher standard than the India article. On my first read through, I came across several glaring points which would have not made it through the nomination phase.

  1. Not comprehensive. There is no mention of the unique (for lack of a better word) caste system that was in place for much of India's history, the Jammu and Kashmir conflict which dominated world news, the assasination of the previous prime minister Indira Gandhi, or the Congress party's latest win in the 2004 elections. Considering these were events which were of significant impact in India's history, there were not even mentioned in this article.
  2. Lack of easily verifiable references and citations. Verifiability is an important tool in Wikipedia's goal to become a complete and accurate encyclopedia. From the superlatives in the lead in — "[i]t is the world's second fastest growing economy as of 2004" — to the media section — "[t]he total number of registered newspapers in India, as of 2003 was 55,780" — the interested reader would be wondering where the quoted numbers come from, or whether the numbers are reliable. The "facts" stated in this article are not easily verifiable. comment - I do understand that there is currently dispute over the referencing of articles. However, the criteria clearly states that references must be easily verifiable. In all honesty, just a listing at the bottom does not make the numbers and facts easily verifiable at all, as the user would have to figure out himself/herself which reference refers to which point.
  3. Lack of neutral point of view/Use of weasel terms. From the "Sports and games" section — "Many blame the Indian government for not having an active sports policy and allowing for the breakdown of the sporting infrastructure. Others choose to criticise the perpetual media fixation on cricket as a distraction from other sports." As stated in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, "[t]his doesn't really give a neutral point of view; it just spreads hearsay, or (worse) couches personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax." Concern was mostly addressed. I am still concerned about "[c]hess, carrom, polo, and badminton are some other games and sports that are said to have originated in India." Very interesting point, but is it possible for you to show me some factual prooof? I would be most interested.
  4. Dubious copyright status of images. I am not very sure about copyright rules, but for Image:Bangalore Infy.jpg, the "Terms and Use" from Infosys website states that "[s]ubject to the terms and conditions set forth in these Terms of Use, Infosys grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right to access, use and display this site and the materials thereon." However, the image was tagged as "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." Perhaps this is wrong? Concern was addressed
  5. Numerous grammatical/style errors. Just to list a few: comment - don't want to appear like nitpicking, but if this were to stay as FA, blatant errors should not be around. I would have done a correction myself, but university is taking up much of my time.
    • The Indian economy is the fourth largest in the world in GDP... First instance of the use of "GDP" but no explanation of what it is. comment - should be gross domestic product, not Gross Domestic Product
    • ...its dynamic nature is manifest in its willingness to respect and tolerate foreign ways and practices. - should be "manifested".
    • ...making it an unofficial member of the Nuclear club... - "Nuclear" should not be capitalized, the phrase should really be in quotation marks. comment - quotation still at the wrong place.

These said, this article hardly has compelling, or "brilliant" prose. I cannot honestly say that this is Wikipedia's best work and the contents are really not unique on the internet (see What is a featured article).

—Travisyoung 02:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. The page conformed to all the September 2004 guidelines for a FA. Let me disect your objections.
  1. "Not comprehensive" events according to you is not a criteria for objection. The History section is a summary, and a very good one. Indira's Gandhi's assasination may be important but it didn't change India. The events listed over here in the History section are key events that have transformed India, nuke explosions, Babri Masjid etc. Similarly the caste system was included at one point of time, but ran into a lot of POV problems and was removed.
  2. As far as the congress winning the 2004 elections. It was mentioned in back then, but somebody has removed them.
  3. I'm sure the weasel terms can be cleaned up after a copyedit.
  4. The images were added later, and some were subsequently changed. It can be easily removed.
  5. References at that time were not mandatory. That is why the page lacks references. We'll add the references.

I wish you had mentioned this on the India talk page so that we could improve on the page. A lot of water has passed since it was a FA. Nichalp 18:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This article is fairly comprehensive. All the details are covered in the main history of india, it doesnt need to be mentioned here. Its a matter of personel opinion as what needs to be further mentioned in the section. Also you have only mentioned that the history section is not comprehensive. I dont think one section being non comprehensive is a criteria for removal from FA. If the whole article lacks comprehensive content please mention them explicitly.

Thank you for pointing out the need for references. They will be added soon. According to the talk page of this page, before listing any article for removal of FA status due to lack of references, you should mention it on the talk page of the concerned article and wait for 2 weeks atleast before nominating. Ditto with dubious copyright images. You could yourself take them out.

I have done minor copyedits to some sections which could have some problems with POV, but please point out if there is a major POV problem. The section you cited is now corrected. Grammer and style mistakes are no criteria for FA removal. Articles are edited all the time and inevitably spell and style mistakes creep in. We do correct them as we come across them. You could too have corrected them. kaal 22:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove/Comments. Namaste Nichalp and Kaal (I am assuming that both of you are Indians please correct me if I am wrong. :)) First of all, please accept my apologies for not discussing my objections on Talk:India first. It was an oversight on my part, as the India article came up when I clicked on "Random page" and I only had a read through the article once.

I appreciate the fact that as a country article, a lot of cultural and national sensitivities are involved. As pointed out by both of you, it is common courtesy that concerns should be raised on the contested article's Talk page first. However, this is non-binding and provisions have been made in the {{farc}} template to address your concerns [1].

Nichalp rightly pointed out that "[a] lot of water has passed since it was a FA," and Kaal pointed out that "[g]rammer and style mistakes are no (sic) criteria for FA removal. Articles are edited all the time and inevitably spell (sic) and style mistakes creep in." While I agree that over time there might be changes made to the article, I firmly believe that a high standard must be maintained for a featured article. Being a featured article once does not mean that the article will remain a featured article indefinitely, if standards do drop after the article's feature. It is precisely because "[a] lot of water has passed since it was a FA," this article is no longer of feature article standard.

Let me reiterate what is stated in Wikipedia:What is a featured article — Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. The whole "Sports and games" section did not have a neutral point of view, spelling/grammatical mistakes were evident throughout the article, and most important of all, there was a glaring lack of references. I appreciate the fact that references were not mandatory at the time of nomination, but the guidelines have changed now. Surely there must be some effort to ensure that the article conforms to the current guidelines; remember, "[a] lot of water has passed since it was a FA." Once again, I firmly believe a featured article should be of a higher standard than the India article I saw when I first read it.

I do agree that I could have done the edits myself as pointed out by Kaal, but given my time constraints (my life does not revolve around Wikipedia, LOL) I am sadly unable to do so. Some people might point out that this only weakens my position in commenting on how this article is undeserving of being a featured article, but that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. My only wish is for the India article to exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, not to antagonize the current contributors.

That being said, I would be happy to withdraw my nomination for removal if I am thoroughly convinced that the India article does indeed exemplify Wikipedia's very best work.

—Travisyoung 05:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I could understand if the page had missing sections and gross spelling errors which would qualify for a demotion. However with minor grammatical errors, which only a trained eye like you could spot it was very hasty of you to throw hot water on our painstaking efforts to add content which would be agreed by all. I disagree with you that there were spelling errors in the page, I had run the entire text through my spellchecker in MS Word XP, to weed out spelling errors. (There were no apparent grammmatical errors; but then, Word is not perfect). Yes, I too share the perfection you strive for. For want of appropriate images, some copyrighted ones were listed here. As soon as suitable free images are available, I'd be happy to replace them. Your inputs on the POV text were great, but I'd still wish you had used the talk page. You conform to very high standards of the English language, it would have been ideal if you had listed grammar quirks, such as the quotes instead holding it against the page. Nichalp 19:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
All images are now tagged.

All comments made by Travis have been looked after.

  • Weasel words removed
  • Copyedits done
  • Images Tagged
  • Grammar corrected
  • As for references, there are some issues to be sorted out regarding inline references. At the moment the references at the bottom suffice.

I take it that all the objections raised have been met.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:59, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC) I've referenced the sports section, the lead-in, and most of the demographics. The economy section, parts of the demographics and culture, I'll continue tomorrow on the lines of Wikipedia:Footnote 3. Also adhered to the additional comments, though I sincerely feel that you should be bold and correct the grammar instead of wasting time typing here what is wrong. I've removed the media section temporarily till I can reference the statistics.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 20:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Asimov

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

As much as I love his writing, this seems like a relic from the brilliant prose days. If it would appear on FAC, I'd say: 1) no references 2) move quotes to wikiquote 3) merge trivia into the article 4) to many red linked lists, move to another article 5) a bit too many sections. Hopefully we can fix it while it is here, but if it is not improved, I am afraid it is not up to our standards anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, with caveats. I agree that the quotations should be moved to wikiquote, or worked more thoroughly into the main text. The same goes for the "Trivia" section—I loathe trivia lists and consider them the bastard children of the factoid generation. Anyhoo, though, I don't think these are lethal problems, just slapdash organization. As for the lack of references, the majority of the article seems to cite its sources. What we really need is a concise bibliography at the end, listing the printed works by Asimov and others which cover his life and work. I'll get to work on this momentarily. Anville 20:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikiquote, references established; well-organized, in my view; the red links I don't see as too significant, especially since the number that exist which are not red is greater. Fine for featured, as I see it. --DanielNuyu 08:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Everyking 07:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Olympic Games

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Non-NPOV style:

  • in its section unofficial POV prevails over official (one of the IOC) one. Namely: Ray Ewry is on top of the table of gold medallists and his photo (the only photo in this section) says about 10 titles, although IOC recognizes only 8 of them (IOC POV considered minor and is present only in the remarks section).
  • the subtopic of that section, "the most successful athlete", is itself non-NPOV item: e.g. in my POV, it is an athlete with most total number of medals, so, corresponding table should also be there.

So, I believe, at least one section of the article is not NPOV-style, an article needs attention and should be removed from the list. Cmapm 12:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Aliter 00:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    1. The IOC is not the "office" for this fact. Ray Ewry's victories were Olympic when he won them (1900, 1904, 1906, and 1908). The IOC no longer recognising Athens 1906 doesn't change history.
      1. I didn't say, that the IOC (and myself, independently from the IOC, BTW) is the "office" for some fact. I just said, that one POV by far prevails over another one (you didn't reply to this my argument): caption of the photo has even no corresponding remark, just is written - With 10 Olympic titles, Ray Ewry may be considered the most successful Olympic athlete in history, in the table Ewry's entry is not even marked by an asterisk - a reader should look through all the table of 10 items to accidentally find the remark in the end. Ewry did won 10 titles, e.g. athletes disqualified for doping also "won titles", but the question is: are all of them and by all people/organizations/whatever recognized as Olympic titles at present? Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    2. Avoiding all POV in ranking athletes is only possible through not ranking them at all, as participation in Olympic events does not have an inherent universal ordering. The criterion used in the article should be familiar to most, as it's used quite often for per country medal counts: Gold count; if equal: silver count; if equal: bronze count.
      1. Yes, one way is not to present this info at all. Alternative (more common in Wikipedia) way is to expand an article and present alternative POVs, e.g. the table of "most-all-medalists" should be appropriate in this case. "Is familiar" does not always mean neither "is acceptable" nor "is suitable". While this criteria is used for country rankings by most parties, including the IOC, ranking separate athletes by it is less popular and I saw ranks by total medal count in many sources (especially the Russian ones) as well. It seems, that I answered to all of your arguments, isn't it? ... But the discussed section of the article has even more bugs. There even is not mentioned, that the table deals with Olympians of the Modern era. Therefore, it can be treated as the table of all-time "most-gold-medalists" and in this case it lacks the famous Ancient Olympian Leonidas from Rhodes [2], who should be on top of the table with 12 Olympic titles. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Brookie 11:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with the points listed above. In addition, regarding the first point, the article is actually more NPOV than the IOC, since both standpoints are included. The IOC silently ignores these Games. As for the "succesful" count, it is very clearly noted that no fair measure is possible. To give an idea nonetheless, the most commonly used method of counting "success" is used. I do not consider that POV. Jeronimo 20:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • All my arguments in my answer to Aliter are suitable here. I feel enough strength in my arguments to go through all steps of the dispute resolution process in the nearest future, I invite you in advance to corresponding dispute articles. Cmapm 00:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see most problems here could have been solved without things ever getting this far. In some cases this would require splitting off subpages, though, as the main page is over the size limit as it is. I will, however, unwatch all Olympic content, as I do not want to be part of this. I found out in earlier discussions that I can not handle the style of discussion showing here, so I won't. I do wish everybody the strength to show eachother respect, and I hope the end result will be am improvement of the Wikipedia. Aliter 00:39, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I'm often getting nervous and border with personal attacks, this is due to many injustices and lies which I encountered dealing with other my main topics for now (e.g. lies in an article 1980 Summer Olympics). I am really very sorry if I hurted you. Cmapm 02:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other sections are NPOV-style in my view. My suggestion for the discussed section is (I'll do corresponding changes myself if nobody goes into discussing them):

  • games of the Modern Era mentioned somewhere in the section
  • an asterisk near Ewry's entry in the table or in the caption of the photo and near the corresponding remark.
  • Either a photo of Larissa Latynina (I'll try to supply it; Ewry's photo may remain there), the caption on which just states: Larissa Latynina won 18 Olympic medals, including 9 gold ones - nothing else or a table of most total medallists, to avoid subtopics both tables may be limited to 5 entries each. Cmapm 16:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've realized this my proposal (as you can see, this is relatively soft, compared to what I proposed on the talk page, I believe it may be a sort of compromise) and change my vote to keep. Cmapm 11:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poetry

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

In its current form with big lists etc, it doesn't meet featured criteria. -- Sundar 08:42, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

    • What big lists? There's one short one and one fairly short one (considering the subject). Could you expand on the etc? Mark1 09:03, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Poetry#Famous Poets appears to be a very subjective list, which can never be comprehensive and accurate. -- Sundar 09:43, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have restored much of what was the original FAC and removed the lists in question. Sundar, would doing this not have been better than listing here? Filiocht 09:52, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC). Keep, BTW. Filiocht 09:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • The article is in a much better form now. I don't know if I can withdraw this nomination given that there is a pro-removal vote here. -- Sundar 10:54, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is too broad a topic ever to be a featured example. --Wetman 10:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no topic restrictions on what can be an FA, as far as I know. Filiocht 10:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is of course correct. It is simply a matter of whether the article meets the criteria. Topic is not one of them. Sundar, do you have some criteria you feel it fails to meet? - Taxman 21:56, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • I had comprehensiveness and lack of a picture in mind. But am not too particular about getting the status removed. -- Sundar 04:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well one could certainly challenge this article on comprehensiveness. It is certainly not comprehensive in any normal sense of the word. Nor could any article with so broad a topic be so, and still be a reasonable size. Maybe this is the crux of Wetman's objection. However I think this is more a problem with our "comprehensiveness" criterion, than a problem with this article. I think it is comprehensive "enough". Keep. Paul August ☎ 23:19, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I object to this as a removal criteria. I don't agree with this statement! We can always use summary form and split off the article into other subarticles. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. Mark1 05:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Poor layout; relevant topics that should be incorporated in the text are dumped as lists at the end of the article. Far too short. Fredrik | talk 09:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, in reverted FA form. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree this article is not the best it could be, and it definitely needs some work. I've nominated it for the newly formed (experimental) Wikipedia: Article Improvement Drive. Come vote if you are interested.--Dmcdevit 18:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • remove. too many lists, poor layout, the topic is very broad, and thus the article is less than comprehensive.Dinopup 18:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

World War I

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

No references. 119 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. As has been argued on the talk pages ad nasuem, there is no consensus about how to retroactively apply that criteria. →Raul654 19:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • That's great, FA is then a shiny badge of "our best work" which the reader can have no confidence in. 119 00:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Your arguement is bull. To put it simply - the references criteria was added recently - about 2 months ago. It's unfair to the authors to defeature 200 or so articles based on criteria that didn't exist at the time they were written. →Raul654 02:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • When the definition of a Featured Article changes, articles that do not meet that definition cannot logically be considered Featured Articles, no matter what their former status was. To do so makes the distinction between articles that are and aren't Featured-quality useless. 119 02:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • With all due respect to Raul, IMHO, being an FA or not an FA, is about the article not the authors. Paul August ☎ 05:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ambi 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. (There are other problems as well; it is too long and contains huge chunks of unwikified text.) I strongly agree with 119's reply above. Featured status should be a distinction of quality, not a commendation for effort (though the two are often related). If 200 articles are no longer up to the standards, that means they should cease to be featured articles. If anything, that should give people incentive to improve them. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I am going to take the principalled stand here and vote remove. The World War I article is an example of one that critically needs references. As a point of fact, Raul654, the references requirement was added on Sept 11, 2004, or nearly five months ago. That is more than long enough. If we don't make a stand somewhere it will never happen. Take the pain now for a much greater long term gain for the project. Lets help eliminate Wikipedia's single greatest weakness. - Taxman 15:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, concur with Taxman's eloquent words. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. When we started to require references, it was clearly said and understood that the requirement would not be retroactive. If we change our minds on that, we need to do so explicitly. This is not the place. Mark1 06:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Mark and Raul. Filiocht 08:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Great article. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is very poorly written. The content is there, but its just painful to read. Its very much quantity over quality. Try reading the "Ludendorff offensives of 1918" section. You will see what I mean. --Benna 07:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I've worked on this article some over time (mostly proofreading other people's additions), and I'll say that, references aside, the article is just not in very good shape. It needs some fairly extensive work summarizing and splitting off detail into subarticles as well as some intelligent copyediting. Everyking 11:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hip hop music

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

ON THE MAINPAGE NOW... full of copyvio. Sample section which has 1-2minutes of songs (definately more than a sample) the mainpage image is a Copyvio! This needs to get revoked ASAP!  ALKIVAR™ 19:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • STAY! Project2501a 19:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Fix the problems if you can get support on the talk page that they are in fact problems. Dont list it here. This article was very recently promoted by community consensus, so it is not likely you will have a successful vote to remove. Fix, don't remove - Taxman 21:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Truly representative. --Wetman 05:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

U.S. Electoral College

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

The first half of this article is decent enough, but then it descends into a bit if trivia about "faithless electors" and then a virtual flame war of "detractors of the college" and "supporters of the college." The pro/con section makes some interesting reading, but it is not really encyclopedic in quality. I'm also afraid that the article isn't very informative. I think that most (American) adults already know how the electoral college works. 1User:dinopup 1/24/05 (Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive --Conti|✉ 10:48, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC))

  • Just a comment, not a vote. First off, Wikipedia is not just for American readers, most of the rest of the world does not know how this works. Secondly, as most American adults tend not to vote, I wonder if they really do know how the damned thing works. Filiocht 11:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Certainly agreed with Filiocht. Covering the basics of a subject so that it is understandable is not a reason to remove it from being featured. Currently the only elements of the featured article criteria this article no longer meets is the lack of references. It seems so far people are not willing to vote to remove articles on that basis alone. Though I personally do believe references are important enough that we should not keep FA's without them. - Taxman 21:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taxman's evaluation is correct - the only criterion this article does not meet is the lack of references, and there is no consensus about how to apply that criteria retroactively. →Raul654 21:19, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. A lack of references should be a reason to remove FA status. If we can't even agree on this, how will we get people to take seriously Wikipedia's woeful failure to adhere to basic referencing standards? And, unless that is addressed, Wikipedia's enemies are much more likely to be successful in spinning the 'Wikipedia is not a reliable source' line. Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 22:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The requirement for references is not retroactive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:32, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Its not now, but it ought to be. As said above, its been 5 months, more than enough time. We've got to take a stand sometime. Why not now. - Taxman 13:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Johnleemk said. Mark1 04:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is a change of style half way through, which is regretable, but otherwise it is fine. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

England expects that every man will do his duty

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

No references. Very short - only about 2 screens of text. I very much doubt it would get promoted today. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:01, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Too short and frankly nothing special. :ChrisG 13:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length... However excellent short articles are also accepted." Wikipedia:What is a featured article. That this particular featured article is short was mentioned at the time it was promoted, and the response was that there really wasn't anything left to say - it is comprehensive. The reference requirement was added later, and that alone is not a criterion for removal. →Raul654 16:34, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Let me illustrate the shortcomings better, then. From What is...: (and this article isn't) 1) Comprehensive. The section on 'has entered the collective consciousness of the British' is limited just to lead, I'd like to see it discussed further, if this is supposed to be 'comprehensive'. 2) Accurate. Really? Lack of references... I won't mind if external links are used as references, but there should be some. 3) Lenght. I don't mind that it is short. I mind, however, that it is too short, and therefore not excellent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's quite a good article, I think, especially in the way that it shows all the semaphore, but there's a bit of weasel language in it. I feel the type of short article that should be featured is one which amazingly condenses the thoughts of a long article into a tiny space, rather than one on a necessarily narrow topic to which little could be effectively added. Deco 07:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and lets not go down the road of deciding that certain content should not be FA. Narrow topics are just as valid as any other. Filiocht 09:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all the reasons in the original discussion. Length is irrelevant. --Auximines 21:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for all the above reasons. Mark1 01:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - a totally unreferenced article such as this one does not deserve to be an FA. Why should any user of the Wikipedia believe any of its contents? Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world --Neoconned 15:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Article makes some very broad statements including that the inscription on Nelson's tomb is wrong but that this article is right on the exact wording of the phrase. It claims in the text that ship logs and accounts of the crew were consulted but no information is given as to the source of these claims. For making such strong statements that is unacceptable. Without discussion of where these claims can be verified the reader is in the position of having to accept the text and nothing more. As to too short, that is not a valid reason to remove. Only being not comprehensive is. To claim not comprehensive you would need to find something it really should cover but doesn't. - Taxman 15:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I love this article. It's one of the most enjoyable articles I've read in a long time. Is it long enough? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Yes, enough so for me. It is, in my opinion, an excellent FA — provided, of course, it's all true!. Does it need references? Most definitely. Would I vote "support", were it to be nominated on FAC? No, the references thing. Should it be kept as an FA anyway? I don't know. What are the criterion for this? Must "old" FAs meet current standards? Or not? There does not seem to be any consensus on this. Paul August ☎ 17:11, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is not consensus; it seems to be split instead. So you can decide your vote and let others vote theirs. What is not under dispute is that the article no longer meets the current FA criteria. The only votes not to remove articles that do not have references come from those feeling that retroactive application of new requirements is unfair. I feel references are critical to the reliability of Wikipedia and are the only thing that can silence critics that can validly claim that an article without references is untrustworthy. Therefore I do feel lack of references, especially on potentially contentious points of fact, is enough to remove an article from being a FA. Any article that the only reason it would not pass FAC again is the lack of references would be very easy to make a FA again: just add the references. So why should it be such a big deal to remove articles that no longer meet the criteria? Wikipedia would be better now and better poised for the long term if every FA was well referenced. At least then we could point to our best articles and say they are reliable. - Taxman 18:51, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Length is irrelevant, provided the article is comprehensive enough. I can see concerns about "entered the collective consciousness of the British", and I've added a short "after the battle" section to expand on this (and to prevent run-on in the previous "signals during the battle" section, although I am also concerned that the article should not lose its commendably tight focus). The phrase really is very well known - what kind of reference do you expect? A survey? Most of the external links are actually references and support the contents, so I've added a "references" heading too. Some paper references would be a welcome addition, but the electronic ones are good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User ALoan asks "what kind of reference do you expect?". A very reasonable question, so I have added one to the article to illustrate what's needed here. The sending of the signal "engage the enemy more closely" is now referenced with a link to Google Print's copy of Iron Admirals, Ronald W Andidora, page 5 (ISBN 0313312664). This is the kind of detailed, contextual reference that needs to be ubiqitous in Wikipedia if it is going to have a chance of fighting off the increasing number of attacks on its accuracy and reliability. --Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world Neoconned 21:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Length is irrelevant. Well written article (some minor tweaks could make the transition to the semephone graphic better).
  • Keep. Problems (except un-fixable length) seem to have been addressed. Looks great to me.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed status January

[edit]

RISC

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Was promoted in 2003, well before we really had any featured article standards. It's long and somewhat detailed, but I don't think it's awfully well written. It also has no references - at all - and no picture. In addition, there's a few factual concerns raised on the talk page, which don't appear to have been dealt with. It hasn't really had much attention in months - and needs it. It might be nice to send this to peer review - it's not so bad that it couldn't be a FA again with a bit of effort. Ambi 07:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Remove, refer to Peer Review. Neutralitytalk 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not exactly typical Wikipedia style, but the anon praise on the talk page is right: it's quite lucid and addresses many relevent points. I'd recommend adding more sectioning, condensing it, and adding more illustrative images and examples, but I think it's quite worthy as it stands. Deco 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Remove and do as suggested. A thorough going-over, with references this time, could probably restore the article's featurability. --Michael Snow 00:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - no references, not worthy of FA status. --Neoconned 15:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not terribly well written, no references. Not so far from a FA that it couldn't gain it again with some work. So I don't think it should be a big deal to remove it and wait till it meets those important criteria before it gets back in. - Taxman 04:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Mostly lists. Nowhere near comprehensive. Sources are inadequate. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal, I've been thinking about listing this myself. Fredrik | talk 00:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. — Matt Crypto 01:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal, even though I have just improved the article at least 50% by removing the absurd disambiguation notice at the top.--Bishonen (talk) 21:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not enough article material, too many lists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Nowhere near comprehensive enough. :ChrisG 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bloodletting

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

No sources, only external links. Not comprehensive. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. A bit on the short side. Could probably be kept with a bit of effort, however. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agreed and agreed, nothing more to say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 16:27, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - The excessive links in this article are appalling. I'm trying to fix some of them. Deco 07:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with links throughout. No article containing "[[red]]-and-[[white]]-striped [[pole (object)|pole]]" should ever be featured. I'm sure it still has other problems though. Deco 08:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Al-Razi

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Mostly lists and long quotes. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Parts of it isn't bad, but someone really needs to clean up the crackified formatting if it's to stay featured. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove in present state, but I hope somebody knowledgeable sees it has gotten farced and goes to work on it. Besides the long lists, it has only one image, which looks pretty copyright to me (no info supplied by uploader).--Bishonen (talk) 22:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Somebody needs to make this into an article, lengths is not everything. Lists and quotes, bah. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I would agree the article has clear flaws given the increasingly high standards for a featured article; I do not believe this article has major problems, since the content is both comprehensive, informative and referenced. The fact the article uses non standard formatting is not appropriate grounds for removal. It attained featured status, I assume legitimately, and if we decide to remove this article then we would should by the same standards remove over half the articles that have featured status, because they have more major problems. :ChrisG 13:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Martha Stewart

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not comprehensive. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. The amount of information on the trial far outweighs that on the rest of her life, which is more notable anyway. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with Ambi, the non-trial related material is skimpy (and dull) and the trial section ghoulishly oversized and over-detailed. The pre-trial material has only recently been half-assedly updated: "She... began restoration of an 1805 farmhouse which is occasionally seen in her television programs (though she uses a stage environment for many shots) and where she still lives today (until her 2004 incarceration)." And what's with the sneer about how her book Weddings came out on the same day as her husband filed for divorce, har, har? I miss an analytical section, summarising something--anything!--interesting about the iconic significance and influence of Stewart in her heyday, from good secondary sources. There is no such thing as analysis in the external links provided, either, they're pretty bad. Incidentally, the claim on the Talk page, that yes, Stewart does look like the image in the article (supposedly a "personal photo" donated to Wikipedia, believe it if you will) is nonsense, of course. She's 63. She looks fine, I found some recent pics on the web, but she looks nothing like that image. An unfortunately poor article on a subject with potential.--Bishonen (talk) 23:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. She is famous for a reason, and was so well before her trial. Also the article has no references. - Taxman 12:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Ideally the scandal/trial should be its own article with a single section summary left in the Martha Stewart article. But the whole article needs to be expanded a lot before that will be needed. --mav 03:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leopold and Loeb

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Fairly well written, but it is so short that it is hard to believe it is complete. Also the talk page points out factual errors that have not been fixed or refuted. It also has no references. - Taxman 23:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Enclave

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

The article is mostly lists of enclaves, so it is not comprehensive. For example it has very little on the impact or importance of enclaves, and little on how they happen or are fixed. Not the greatest writing either, and has no references. - Taxman 23:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Removed status February

[edit]

Rembrandt

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Another Brilliant Prose article. The article seems incredibly short for an artist of Rembrandt's stature. The excellent featured articles on Henry Moore, John Vanbrugh, and Matthew Brettingham are all longer and provide a more in-depth treatment of their subjects, and I think we can all agree that none of those three luminaries are in the same league as Rembrandt in terms of fame and importance. There are only two images, which seems like a small amount for such a prolific artist. Finally, there are no references, though I realize that policy is unclear on how to handle that problem retroactively. Indrian 02:12, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral. Good article. Badly organised. Ambi 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • A good article, sure, but is it a great article. Is this the best wikipedia can offer for Rembrandt, or will people see this page, see that it is a featured article, and comment, wow, I was really hoping for something better? Indrian 20:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, definitely. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Hard to believe it is comprehensive and lacks references. - Taxman 16:03, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Too short, badly organized and sentimental. Junes 20:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. And remove the labels from its Talk page too, please. --Wetman 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It has the skeleton of a featured article, but no flesh on its bones. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - doesn't seem comprehensive. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Damascus steel

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

A hold over from the Brilliant Prose days. Good in its day, but times have changed. →Raul654 01:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. But what criteria are you saying it no longer meets? The only one I see it entirely violates is in lacking a picture. - Taxman 14:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's really quite good, and would take little effort to polish back up to FA standard. But it's not quite there at the moment. Ambi 08:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What are the actionable objections? Paul August ☎ 18:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • UH, it's very short - I doubt that its comprehensive (but I'm no metallurgist so I cannot say what's missing). It lacks a picture of any sort; for cituations they basically renamed the 'external links' section. →Raul654 19:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - needs proper references (ie. inline references - not just a list of sources at the end). --Neoconned 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Incorrect. Our policy is that you can use either inline sources or a reference at the end - both are acceptable. →Raul654 22:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if that really is the policy, it needs fixing. It's unreasonable to expect readers to verify information in articles when it's not made explicit which part of the article comes from which source. Putting a list of sources right at the end with no effort to correlate those sources with the article's contents is both lazy and fragile. Wikipedia needs a robust referencing policy that will boost its credibility (and that's a matter of urgency). For an example of a proper referencing policy in action, please see SourceWatch. My vote is unchanged - 'Remove'. --Neoconned 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • The featured article criteria say it has to abide by policy, and not your personal interpretation of what it should be. →Raul654 03:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Listing references at the end is both standard and very reasonable. The only time references are needed inline is when a controversial or seemingly surprising fact is stated that needs to be backed-up with a specific citation. --mav 04:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)~
        • I think inline references are welcome, when appropriate, but wikipedia is not a scientific paper (and i'm glad for that!), so they shouldnt be mandatory. muriel@pt 17:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought we were not retro-actively applying FA-criteria? Anyway, the title should be Damascene steel. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • The way it has been applied is that lack of references alone is typically not enough to defeature an article, but lack of references can be used in conjunection with other shortfallings. →Raul654 19:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Peb1991 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is short, but looks pretty comprehensive to me. "Damascus steel remains something of a mystery", so I doubt whether a metallurgist would be able to help much anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The only criteria it totally fails to meet is a picture. Inline references would be great, but few articles do that now. - Taxman 15:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Those who contend that it fails "comprehensiveness" should say what is missing. Raul, are you saying there is a problem with the References? Paul August ☎ 17:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Baroque

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article should be removed. First of all it doesn't cite its sources. Second of all, some of the pictures may be copyvio. But the most important problem is shared by many other art "style" or "movement" articles: it fails to make clear the whole coherency of the movement, either intended or subconsciously done by the practicioners. For example the scentence: " It is an interesting question to what extent Baroque music shares aesthetic principles with the visual and literary arts of the Baroque period." If the music DOESNT share the same principles as the movement in architecture, then the whole article would have to be changed, such as the lead to be "baroque is defined as such and such features of art and architecture, and is also a term given to the music made during that era even though the music wasn't connected to the principles of the art and architecture movements". There needs to be a clear distinction between what was intended by the artists and musicians, and how later observers looked at it. This can all be fixed over a while, but please remove the featured status in the meantime. (unsigned nomination by 67.180.196.196. --Conti|✉ 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC))

The section on baroque literature is complete nonsense. It doesn't even read coherently. I have a feeling no one has scrutinized the section because few people like to read early 17th century literature.68.118.61.219 04:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • This was nominated here in November and that nomination failed. Propose striking this nomination. Filiocht 08:31, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Old discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/November and December 2004#Baroque. --Conti|✉ 10:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. It barely got any keep votes last time and a number of editors were waiting to vote remove or keep to see if it would improve soon. It has not improved significantly. - Taxman 13:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove And remove the labels on the Talk page too, please. --Wetman 05:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, with regret. It is better than it was in November, but needs to TLC to bring it up to Featured standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Periodic table

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This is one of the holdovers from the Brilliant Prose days (see: Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science). Even though I've done considerable work on the table and on many element articles, I haven't much touched the prose on this page. As is, it is not a bad article but it is still fairly incomplete: There is not much mention at all about periodic trends (which is the central reason why the table is so useful). An FA article on this subject should have an entire rather long and subsectioned section on the different trends. The structure of the table is also barely covered (note that groups are covered but not periods or series). The history section is way too short (and no, simply pasting-in History of the periodic table will not work). In addition, the lead section is inadequate and there do not appear to be any references. I do plan to fix all the major issues in the future but in the mean-time I don't think this article should be listed as an example of our best work. --mav 04:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Yikes, you're right. Definitely not FA quality now. I anticipate supporting once you make the above outlined changes. Please use good references and cite important facts directly to the source. - Taxman 16:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is good as far as it goes and does Wikipedia no shame but it clearly isn't comprehensive enough to merit FA-status. -- Haukurth 01:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. The table itself is well-done, but the rest of the article falls way short of qualifying. --Michael Snow 17:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not comprehensive enough, also needs references. Paul August ☎ 18:06, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - needs references. --Neoconned 22:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. It seems to be of featured qualify, so far as it goes - perhaps it could be moved to a more accurate title to reflect its limited nature. I would keep it, but I can see I am swimming against the tide. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed status March

[edit]

Star Trek

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I believe that the standards for Featured article are now much higher than when this article was initially nominated and that as the article stands, it does not match or coorespond to current FA standards. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Which standards doesn't it comply to? Peb1991 21:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Comprehensive: Does the main article of Star Trek cover all topics? No. It has a list for more topics, I'll give it that. But it really should attempt to include the list into the article. There is no attempt to include topics like Star Trek inconsistancies, brief information about Gene Roddenberry, brief information about certain highly involved crew members (writers, etc). Does that seem suitable for an FA? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Well-written: Is this article well-written? To me, no. It seems to have changed from its original FA standing to something else. Can I be bold and fix it? Certainly. But this will require a lot of work and time. I firmly believe that having it go through the FA process again would improve the article. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet. Does it really exemplify as Wikipedia's very best work? I mean, take a look at Venus (planet), then tell me if the article really does. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Include a lead section which is brief but sufficient to summarize the entire topic. Does it? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Include images: Several sections seem to be missing images, and were removed due to copyright violations. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Include references. Although this has a Further Reading section, I am certain there are plenty of book references or other references. People cited complaints when I attempted to nominate Mars as a FA and told me about the missing references. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Addressing concerns: -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Article size limitations: "Some people feel that every featured article should have a certain length, and if not enough can be said about the article's subject to reach that length, it should in most cases be merged into another article". There is nothing said in What is a featured article regarding a maximum length. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I must ask the voters whether if they believe that there is an anti-Star Trek movement in the Wikipedia. Am I nominating this article because I am part of such a movement? Or am I nominating because I don't feel that this meets FA standards? -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:13, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Everyking 09:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Rossrs 11:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I disagree adamantly with the reasons given for removing this article from the list. In order for this article to retain everything, it would need to violate the 32K guideline set out by Wikipedia policy. 23skidoo 14:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a fine article, addressing a vast realm of fiction and cultural relevance with just the right balance of brevity and detail. It's an article about Star Trek, and it does a fine job of telling an uninitiated reader what Star Trek is. - Brian Kendig 22:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. There's even an empty section. Fredrik | talk 22:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, for the following reasons (which I hope will answer Peb1991's question):
    • No references: with the vast array of reference works available, it should be possible to list the ones that support the information in the article.
    • Not comprehensive. As the "main" article of everything Star Trek in Wikipedia, this article should provide a broad overview of the subject, and give pointers to more detailed articles for the benefit of the interested reader. See Wikipedia:Summary style for more information. The current article does an adequate job of describing the series and the movies, but many of the other main categories of Trek info are missing or underdeveloped—which include, but are not limited to:
      • Star Trek's creators and main contributors
      • Star Trek main characters
      • The Star Trek universe
      • Star Trek technology
      • Franchising/merchandising: books, novels, games, toys, etc.
      • Trek fandom (cultural impact, Trekkies, conventions, etc.)
    • A disproportionate amount of space is taken up by the "An uncertain future for the franchise" section. It discusses—in a somewhat rambling fashion—the possible future of the franchise which is, by definition, speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball nor a current-events news site. Most of this section could be deleted, condensed or relegated to secondary articles (i.e. the bit about the "Enterprise" series renewal could be moved into the Enterprise article). This would make room for the missing topics I mentioned above.
    • The "Motion pictures" section also largely contains speculation and rumours (all of it unreferenced at that). Concentrate on factual information about the past, not on speculation about the future.
    • Sections with just a link or one line of text are a no-no ("Society and Star Trek" and "Other storylines"). See WP:MOS and related articles.
    • There is a notable dichotomy between the internal links provided by the article and the ones in Category:Star Trek. "See also" should link to the most important articles on Star Trek. Instead, we get "Ranks and Insignias" and "TOS Trekmuse"?
--Plek 22:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a date available for when the Star Trek article was named a feature article? I'm curious to compare histories to see what has changed that has made it allegedly unsuitable. This might assist in finding out where improvements can be made and whether the 32K limit should simply be ignored in this case. Incidentally in a minor way this article does deal with an "ongoing event" since the future of the franchise is a matter of hot debate at the moment and such discussion isn't likely to settle down (allowing consolidation of outdated information, among other things) until an official announcement of Trek XI is made, or if a final outcome is determined regarding current efforts to save Enterprise. 23skidoo 21:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    The talk page indicates in March of 2004. Specifically, 02:14, 15 Mar 2004. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Diff from March 19, 2004 to now. -- Sufficient to say, it looks like FA standards were lower a year ago than the standards now. -- AllyUnion (talk) 00:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that when all of the "Brilliant prose" articles got converted to "Featured articles" (that is, when the concept of "Featured articles" was created)? Many of them would not pass the test today - see the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove --Spinboy 06:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. To many lists, to many tiny descriptions of subarticles, short lead, no references (mixed with external links?)...and it doesn't even mention the term 'trekkie'. Fix it or kill it, cause it is not going anywhere good for now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove -- Dunro 10:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 14:25, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. If the WP were really "the encyclopedia that Slashdot built", this article would be a whole lot better, don't ya think? Anville 20:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geyser

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This looks like a pretty decent article but doesn't seem up to featured standards to me. It's not very well formatted, with an enormous lead section, it lacks a diagram to explain the phenomenon, it hasn't got references, and I think generally there's more that could be said about geysers. In particular, the section about Triton's geysers is definitely not comprehensive. Worldtraveller 20:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Peb1991 23:01, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 23:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not sure how this was featured to begin with. --DanielNuyu 01:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 14:36, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Evil Monkey∴Hello 23:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. KingTT 14:17, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Japan general election, 2003

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Too short and not comprehensive enough. Elections pages should have maps, in depth results, time-lines, issues, more references, pictures, etc... in order to be considered for featured article status. Earl Andrew 21:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beer

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I think that the article should be delisted for these reasons:

  • The references are all jumbled up with external links. Note that this is not the same as there being no references!
  • It is not comprehensive enough, specifically on these points:
    • There is little history since the 16th century (is there really only that one change to the brewing process?)
    • There is no mention of anything to do with the moderate drinking controvery in relation to beer (that is, whether drinking moderate amounts of beer are beneficial or not) This should be mentioned at least.
    • It says little about beers using wild yeasts.
  • There are a few technical reasons for delisting:
    • Some of the subsections are just lists, with no prose. Example: the "Brewing Industry" section. Also, how is it decided which of these breweries are significant or not?
    • Some of the items in the lists are placed contradictorally (for example, sake is in both "Other Types" and "Related Drinks". Where does it belong?)
    • The lead section seems a bit on the short side.

This article has the skeleton of a featured article, but it just isn't there anymore. I hope that it gets improved so it can become featured again. Michelle T 19:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with all points above; the article starts out promising enough with the "Ingredients" and "History" main sections, but then degenerates into lists of bitty trivioids. A "comprehensive description of beer styles" should be elaborated upon in the article and not be relegated to an external site. Wikilinks in subject headings should go. Being the main "beer" article, I'd also like to see something about written about the related subjects—like homebrewing and Non-alcoholic beer—here. Cheers! --Plek 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutralitytalk 01:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove : As much as it pains me to see a subject so dear to my gut... er... heart face delisting, I must also agree with the above points. A shame, but this article does require quite a bit of review. – ClockworkSoul 01:50, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Madonna (entertainer)

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I think Madonna deserves better than this. The article might once have been Brilliant Prose, but seems to have degenerated. Much of the body text is still rather good, but I think there are problems with structure and layout. Specific problems are:

  • Lead section is too brief, and does not summarise the article properly.
  • ToC is overwhelming
  • Article is 52 kB long
  • The Discography is just screaming for a separate article (this would also solve the previous two issues)
  • The "Career achievements" section is very tedious and repetitive
  • No references and only one in-line citation
  • The sectioning of the article seems haphazard: the "Madonna Re-Invented" section seems to be tacked onto "Biography", with no apparent logic why a new level-2 section is used. The same applies to the "Current News" section, the title of which is also unencyclopedic. Also, the various aspects of Madonna's life (recording, media, cultural influence, film career, etc.) are all mixed together in the "Biography" section. I think a major refactoring of the existing data into a new section structure is in order.

I propose removing the article from FA status, with the hope that a new drive will lead to much-needed improvement to it. --Plek 20:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Everyking 23:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Agree with all points. Also I think we should be moving away from "Trivia" sections. If the factoids can't be worked into the main article then perhaps they're really not worth mentioning. Interestingly some albums don't have their own articles. If they did, then a lot of the info in the main article could be trimmed. The article has a really good skeleton, but too much has been piled onto it, and unevenly at that. Rossrs 14:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with the above. A lot of good material here, but also a fair amount of POV. - Taxman 13:30, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Application programming interface

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Hard to believe it is comprehensive, and has no references. - Taxman 15:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove Everyking 05:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm a programmer, and this is certainly not comprehensive. The illustration is horrible. Jeronimo 20:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm also a programmer and I'd expect a much more detailed article for this topic. There's really only one section with useful information. I also agree with Jeronimo that the illustration is horrible. Carrp | Talk 18:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brolga

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not at all comprehensive. Remove. Oldak Quill 19:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Everyking 19:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Ta bu shi da yu 21:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Confuzion 10:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is only not comprehensive if there is something it does not cover that it should. What would that be? I don't know the topic, but everything I think should be there is. What other criteria would you all say it doesn't meet? If you just vote to remove without mentioning why, then this is just a popularity contest. - Taxman 20:50, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
To quote Confuzion, "What do they eat? Do they have natural predators? What's the estimated population size, and is it increasing/decreasing? Do they migrate? How fast do they run/fly?" and this is just a start - bascially not showing off the best of the communities work, alot more could be done.--Oldak Quill 02:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, well, that stuff. ok then. Remove. - Taxman 00:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would suggest that in deference to the difficult process of approval for an article to become a featured article we would make a minimal effort to improve the article before voting to remove its status. I typed in "brolga migration" in Google and the very first link answered most of these questions. Rmhermen 18:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This has been here before, I did try some to improve it by claring up some problems. I didn't think it was enough. But a few others thought it was. I'm inclined to agree with Oldak--ZayZayEM 00:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Search engine

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not at all comprehensive. Remove. Neutralitytalk 01:22, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree. 119 01:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree. I also suggest that we place this on Peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with above, and no references. - Taxman 20:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with above. Rad Racer 16:14, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[13-Sep-2006 Status: On May 6, 2006 (one year later), I began adding reference-notes in the "search engine" article, as sources for some statements; however, by September (now 18 months later), few new sources had been added. I converted the existing notes into ref-tag footnotes with a "Notes" section per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout. Many statements still remain unsourced, but sources would be easy to find in web-searches. -Wikid77 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Triangle

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

I like the images in the article - they are of high quality. However, pictures alone would not get this article to FA status today. Firstly, there are far too many one sentence paragraphs. The lead section is too short. The history of the triangle is not explored (for instance, there is nothing about the Pythagoreans and their view of the triangle). There is a lot of maths, but not much of an explanation of why you would use the maths (for instance, see "Heron's formula"). Though not retroactive I know, there is no references section (which I feel for something like a triangle, there really should be). I'm afraid I think it should be delisted from FA. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not a vote, but finding a reference for this shouldn't be hard. Mark1 06:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support removal for reasons above. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 20:44, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Everyking 00:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I thought it was good! Brookie 10:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • oh, it's good all right. I liked it even. However, good and featured article quality are not the same thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/January_to_March_2005&oldid=986296035"