Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates
| Featured article (FA) tools |
|---|
|
If you feel an article on Wikipedia:Featured articles should not be featured (because it has since been changed, or whatever), list it here (at the top of the page) and state the reasons you think it should be removed. Also add the {{farc}} template (Template:Farc) to the top of the article's talk/discussion page.
Do not list articles that have recently been promoted — such complaints should have been brought up during the candidate period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either such listing is likely to be summarily removed.
Once an article has been listed here for two weeks, it will be removed from the featured articles list if the consensus is to remove. Either way, the discussion will be logged at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive.
Add new removals on top, one section per article.
Articles nominated for removal
This is a very nice article, well written, good references, the paradigm of npoviness. So nice that I'm translating it for the wiki.pt. Unfortunately, sorry for being a spoil sport, its a bit messy due to heavy mixing of fact and interpretation. Moreover, the pursue of describing all possible points of view goes to the extreme of dilluting what is actually important. I understand that it needs to be comprehensive but big, gentlemen, its not always the best (mind the joke). To conclude, i would suggest some cutting and organizing under the principles of less is more. Cheers, muriel
- This is a recently promoted article (October 19), which the instructions on the page say not to list here. Mpolo 14:55, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Object to removal. A finely crafted article with a wealth of detail. Encyclopedia articles aren't meant to be "a good read" in the tradition of popular magazine pieces or newspaper stories. The more you can put out there for the student or scholar the better, so long as it stays on point, which Shroud of Turin does. JDG 08:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- As you like it... Anyway, if you are very keen to write a monography on the subject, maybe it would be worth mentioning the Catholic Encyclopedia position on this. Its interesting. Cheers, muriel
- By the way, i understand the need of protecting recently promoted articles from harassment but... how am i supposed to know that this was a recent? And what constitutes recent? muriel
- The easiest way to see when an article was promoted would be to check the talk page, and see when {{FAC}} was changed to {{FA}}. Now, I'm the one who wrote the rule, for the reason you give, plus the fact that it seems to me that recently promoted articles should reflect our standards (which tend to change over time). As for what constitutes recent - I'd probably say that if it was promoted less than a month ago, you shouldn't be listing it here. →Raul654 12:27, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Object to removal: it is pretty much the same as it was when it was promoted (and in any event, it could just be reverted, no?). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Since its acceptance as a Featured Article, the organization in the article section on "Variations" has deteriorated greatly. --zandperl 23:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Fix, then. Don't remove. jguk 09:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose removal unless no-one wants to fix it. If recent changes make it worse, can't it just be reverted to its state when it was promoted. Alternatively, if the recent changes are valuable, can't they just be incorporated more elegantly? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No sources. 20:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, having read again, reluctantly, remove for the reasons set out above and below. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Neutral - not the best, but not awful either. Peer review, perhaps? (although I suppose that a featured article that needs peer review ought not to be featured...) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) - Support removal. It's certainly a decent article, but it's clearly below current standards. It'd be nice to see - and I don't think it'd be too hard for someone to do so - this improved to that standard. Until then, though, remove. Ambi 11:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal. No lead section, no references. Some one sentence paragraphs. This is one of those excuse articles, "well if ... is featured and doesn't have ... why does this article have to?" - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Support removal for reasons given by others. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that spoiler warnings in this context are daft. If someone is reading up about a writer, they probably want to know what that writer wrote about, and how they did it. Filiocht 13:58, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
No lead section or sources. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Remove. No headline image either - not up to standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)- Remove.
No image, no lead section, no references.- Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) - Comment. Just noted this article listed here, I will work on it next week to get it up to featured standard. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, Please re-evaluate the article. I have added an introductory section, referenced and a related image. I hope this adequately addresses aforementioned issues. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:08, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Good work. Just fix up all the one sentence paragraphs and I'll certainly support keeping it now. One thought though, did you check any of the added sources to make sure they concur with the info in the article? I worry about that when the sources are added after the fact. - Taxman 13:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for changing your vote, and good point on the one-sentence paragraphs. I've now merged paragraphs where appropriate to improve readability. The references agree on the content but are often more detailed than our article, this merely shows the article could be expanded, the Dutch have a rich history. I would like to add that the main source of this article is the Dutch article on the history of the Netherlands, but I am not sure if internal sources need to listed in the references section. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:41, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Good work. Just fix up all the one sentence paragraphs and I'll certainly support keeping it now. One thought though, did you check any of the added sources to make sure they concur with the info in the article? I worry about that when the sources are added after the fact. - Taxman 13:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
Little structure, no obvious lead section and no references. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Short, little structure and no references. Images have no source information either. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Again, agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)