Wikipedia:Featured article review/Military history of Canada/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 by User:Marskell 17:20, 18 August 2008 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]- Notified WP Military History, WP Canada, SimonP, Michael Dorosh and Brian Crawford.
- Factual accuracy is lacking. Claims, with the exception of the most modern events, are largely unverifiable against reliable sources.
- The article has a number of style issues including dead wikilinks, an overwhelming table of contents and a number of cases of POV
- Images that lack source information and possibly inappropriate copyright status of multiple images:
Image:Canadian 1918 antiaircraft team.jpgsourcedImage:Sopwith Dolphin photo2.jpgdeleted
Labattblueboy (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with those comments. The article's structure is rather odd and the amount of space given to various topics doesn't seem to match their importance (eg, why are there seperate sections on the formation of each of the services and a section on the Invasion of Iraq which basically states that Canada didn't participate in this war?). The article is also overly focused on Canadian military deployments, and has next to nothing on changes to the military's structure and equipment - for instance, there's nothing on the amalgamation of the services into the Canadian Forces! The article also needs a lot more citations. Given the amount of work required, I don't see any alternative to eventually de-listing this article. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a valiant effort, but for the length, it lacks references. It also needs to be edited for style. The Americans in 1775 were not rebuffed by locals; I'd say they were rebuffed mostly by indifference. Rebuffed is a strong word to use here, and needs to be disussed. This is just one example. --soulscanner (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect layout, incorrect lead, unformatted citations, I didn't look any further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I too agree with these comments. There are some unnotable inclusions such as dramatizations. We can't list every film in which the Canadian military was included. The article has overly emphasized land-based units/the army. I've tried to rectify this, but more work needs to be done. I have also just completed a section on unification. Still some POV that needs fixing, and lots of copyediting to do. Also, the heading structure/organization needs a major overhaul.--BC (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), style issues (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I don't feel that the concerns raised have been sufficiently addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove The article remains largely unreferenced and unbalanced and is not of FA standard. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 14 August 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.