Wikipedia:Featured article review/Father Damien/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 11:13, 6 February 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left at RickK, Bio, Catholicism, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Message left at WikiProject Saints. –Outriggr § 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of the information is not properly cited inline. Also seems rather uncomprehensive with just a brief description of his major landmarks. Contains a trivia section. It became featured back in 2004 and remained nearly unchanged since. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inline citation is just a preference and should not be a factor in de-featuring an article. As you say yourself, it became featured and has remained nearly unchanged since. If there is something you would like to change, why not just change it yourself? --Ali'i 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, inline citations are always a major factor in de-featuring articles. This article definitely needs them. The FAR nominator has made some valid comments. LuciferMorgan 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Inline citations have been a requirement for FAs for quite a while, and older FAs are expected to conform with current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Is this long quote in "Criticisms" necessary? And the online sources in the few inline citations are not properly formatted. Not to speak of the [citation needed] tags.--Yannismarou 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), and a trivia section (4). Marskell 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Insufficient citations - claims are made in the article that need backing up. LuciferMorgan 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove no progress, no one working on it. Other than robots and vandal reverts, six or seven edits during month-long review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.