Wikipedia:Featured article review/First Battle of the Stronghold/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 16:14, 30 September 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- WikiProject California, WikiProject Military history and User:Gentgeen notified
Fails criterion 1c - no inline citations, 2a - lead is too short and possibly also 1b since it is quite short.--Peter Andersen 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DowngradeComment- for the moment due to no in-line cites Buckshot06 20:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note in the FAR instructions that in this stage of the process there are to be no declarations. Comments to help improve the article are welcome. --RelHistBuff 08:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Pontiac's Rebellion for how to use inline citations. Cliff smith 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Captain Jack's cave at Captain Jack's Stronghold in Lava Beds NM-750px.JPG has no source, and the licensing was not added by the uploader. I've tagged the image as having no source and notified the uploader. Pagrashtak 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took that photo and simply forgot to add the license tag. Now fixed. --mav 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t be a problem for anybody to fix the inline cite issue since the primary source for this article is online. I disagree that the article is not comprehensive; this is simply a battle that was not that long or complicated. So the prose size seems appropriate to me. I also don’t see much of a problem with the lead; seems appropriately detailed given the size of the article. --mav 17:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance I see a few things I would alter, besides the lack of inlines.
- I see several really short sections/paragraphs, perhaps merger is appropriate to satisfy 1(a).
- Articles should not be used in section headings, a criteria 2 miss step. (Change "The Battle" to "Battle")
- Back to the structure, as is I don't think the article is comprehensive, mainly because it doesn't provide enough context about the events leading up to the battle. The details included in the background aren't really background, more the prelude of the battle. The background section should let me know, briefly, what led to war in the first place and what events happened leading up this battle. Then a prelude section would be used to discuss things like number of troops, troop movements in the days preceding the battle and what happened in the war immediately preceding the battle, and, if required, why the battle itself happened. See relevant guideline at WikiProject Military History.
That's all thus far, hope that helps. IvoShandor 09:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alteration to my third bullet point. There is some background, but I still don't think there is enough context, it seems to be written as if the reader is familiar with the Modoc War, I am sure most are not. IvoShandor 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 09:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per nom. --Peter Andersen 21:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c, and it's a boring article. Tony (talk) 10:49, 30 September 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.