Wikipedia:Featured article review/Italian Renaissance/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 11:43, 27 April 2008.
Review commentary
[edit]Overall this is a nicely written article. However, there are several, and I must emphasize several places where citations are missing. The whole lead contains no citations at all. section contains no citations. Along with this section. The Sculpture and painting also does not contain any citations. The Architecture section does not contain any citations, along with the Music section. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree more referencing needed, although in a very summary overview article this should be restricted to statements likely to be challenged, which are pretty few here, as the traditional conventional views, not to say cliches, are rigidly adhered to. Several obvious links are missing - in the art section for example, which is really more important. The later period is badly neglected - this article is ready to close the whole show down in 1500, when something in eg 1580 is normally regarded as part of the Italian Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some links & copyedited, mostly to art bits. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment: leads are generally summaries of the article as a whole, and as such, rarely necessitate citations (since ideally everything stated in the lead that would need a citation would be cited in the main body of the article). Of course, quotations, specific statistics, or controversial statements would still need citations. BuddingJournalist 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 1c. No citation work happening. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Retain per review. Name some statements (there are indeed few here) which are uncited and likely to be challenged. These comments are not actionable, disruptive, and meaningless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I could stick tags everywhere because there are a lot of subjective statements. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there are a lot of consensus statements. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I could stick tags everywhere because there are a lot of subjective statements. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The ibid footnotes are unfortunate; I assume they refer to Burke, but I don't have a copy of Burke to confirm. Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anderson, the fact that you would register a Strong Retain along with talk of disruptive and meaningless comments, to an article so clearly needing repair is indicative of quite a few things. A few descriptiors are floating around in my mind. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. I'm removing. Marskell (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.