Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Netherlands/archive1

History of the Netherlands

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History. Sandy 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Dutch wikipedians and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Sandy 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Netherlands was promoted during the "Brilliant prose" days, does not seem to have a main editor or author, and does not have inline citations. Inline citations are a requirement for current FAs. Sandy 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.), and needs to support critical statements made with proper sources. LuciferMorgan 11:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Sandy and LuciferMorgan. I also think the lead need some work.--Yannismarou 16:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. This article needs considerable work. Some of the facts are wrong and it doesn't shows a grasp of the state of research (e.g. Israel's exhaustive work). The Burgundian period is especially perfunctory (No mention of Holland's status within the Reichkreis which helped explain the turn to the Valois). Eusebeus 11:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. Not a single edit since nominated, other than mine. Sandy 17:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Tone is all wrong. Daniel Case 02:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are inline citations, lead, comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Insufficient inline citations (1. c.). Only Sandy has tried improving the article, but his/her time is so wrapped up and being torn between FARs one can't really expect him/her to do the work. LuciferMorgan 17:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I've done what I can, but no knowledgeable editor has appeared, no significant progress has been made, the article has insufficient citations, prose problems, the lead is poorly written, and accuracy concerns were raised (above). Sandy 14:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Sandy spoke for me!--Yannismarou 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per all above.UberCryxic 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Came across this one while doing interwiki work. Based on the inapproriate tone alone, I would not support it as an FAC now. Anyone wishing to improve it back should be skilled enough in Dutch to translate that article and use it as an example. Daniel Case 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]