Wikipedia:Featured article review/Celtic Tiger/archive1

Celtic Tiger

Review commentary

Message left at CGorman --Peter Andersen 16:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Additional messages left at Ireland and B&E. Sandy (Talk)[reply]

A very old FA. Needs more inline citations (1c) - a lot of the links that are actually there doesn't work. I doubt it is comprehensive (1b) and it is very listy (1a). --Peter Andersen 16:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. External jumps, mixed reference styles (refs need to be converted), not clear if "Online references" are really References or External links, but the sources necessary for adequate inline citations appear to be available, and this article should be salvageable. Sandy (Talk) 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Indeed - not as bad as I was expecting, given its antiquity (FAC in late October 2004). It has not changed all that much in two years (diff from 31 October 2004, the last version before it was promoted, to 20 October 2006, the latest edit before today). Inline citations are required, inevitably; the listy sections can no doubt be prosified, if necessary. -- 17:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I've worked on this article considerably and it has gone from here to current. I will probably review the text one more time. It could still do with more citations and improvement in flow but I think it's considerably improved. –Outriggr § 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since there is still a lot of uncited text, we should move to FARC just to keep things moving. Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and flow. Joelito (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone still working on this? There are still some statements needing citation (for example, the first thing my eyes fell on was "Today, wind power supplies only 5% of Ireland's electricity."), and the blue links in Notes need to be expanded to include bibliographic info and last access date. Sandy (Talk) 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm done. –Outriggr § 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can expand the refs that are there, but if no one is working on finishing the citing, it might not be worth the effort ... ??? Sandy (Talk) 00:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to agree with you. (Which kind of reinforces for me the 85° uphill battle that I feel this process is!) –Outriggr § 00:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Unfortunately, in spite of excellent improvements by Outriggr, no one else pitched in to finish the job. Sandy (Talk) 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Still patches of uncited text. At least the article has been improvised though. LuciferMorgan 21:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would it be worth the effort to remove the uncited statements without affecting the context in order to preserve FA? If you all think it is possible, I might try giving a first pass at it. --RelHistBuff 11:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I spoke too soon. It looks unsalvageable unless someone has the sources. Too many uncited sections that really need cites. I change my vote to Remove. --RelHistBuff 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]