Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August to October 2004

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Kept status

[edit]

Shroud of Turin

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Moved discussion on recently promoted article to Talk:Shroud of Turin.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

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)
    • I started fixing it up, but I'm not sure if anyone else is interested. I would feel uncomfortable if an article that I thought wasn't Featured material was then fixed by only myself and kept as a Featured article. We'll see if it evolves any more, but I expect it will be slow. See its talk page for more discussion. --zandperl 17:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I dunno, this article looks pretty unorganized. It doesn't seem like a simple task to "fix" it. I say remove. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

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)
  • Keep now, good work. 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)
        • I don't see how it could hurt. But maybe others disagree. - Taxman 15:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree so I've added the Dutch article as the top reference, I'm in doubt whether the other references should be listed as external links instead though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • I suppose, in an ideal world, you would refer to the references for the Dutch version - are any listed? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Nope but it has an external link, to a fairly extensive site which I think was used as main reference for the original article. I think the original author likely had extensive knowledge of the topic himself. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I think the article has improved a lot, I have now added the Night Watch as top image as it's very well known and symbolic for the Dutch golden age. I have moved the previous image of Michiel de Ruyter down, it is appropriate in a subsection. New are images, and proper captions, of Anne Frank, Napoleon and Indeonesia, all important and illustrative elements of Dutch history. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Japanese toilet

[edit]
Article is still a featured article. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:Featured_articles may say that featured articles are "reviewed for style, prose[sic] and completeness" (the [sic] reference has now been fixed) it is hard (perhaps impossible) to believe considering what I have read in the first paragraph of this article. Prose is completely lacking as well as style and although I did not get past the first paragraph, I think it speaks for the rest of the article (as it should).

I will not review each error, but instead will display how the sentence should be. The current state of the art is bidet toilets, which, as of 2004, are installed in more than fifty percent of Japanese households. (Note the removal of POV and the redundancy of ?advanced high-tech?)

In Japan, these bidets are commonly called Washlets (ウォシュレット), a brand name of Tokyo-based Toto Ltd., and include many advanced features, rarely seen outside of Japan.

The rest of the paragraph does not belong here as it applies only to the last type of toilet (with a sentence about squat toilets), and should therefore be place under that heading.

I have made the following changes to the article, but otherwise the remainder of the article is unchanged (i.e. still horrible). Additionally, the remainder of the article, as a whole, is in poor character, and unfortunately, I have come too late to prevent its current status.

Moogle 01:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph is representative of the entire article and is shown on the main page - therefore, if it is poor, it needs to be revised to be considered one of "of our best articles" (I actually did read beyond the first paragraph, but wrote the above for effect).
The creator of course.
As far as meeting "all of the major featured article criteria" - while it may have been "comprehensive [and] factually accurate" as mentioned above, the question of whether it was, "Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose?the former name for featured articles" is easily answered: No.
If pulling actual sentences out of the text and improving them was not enough for you, what do you need, exactly?
Besides being described as "a great article", what exactly is great about it?
Finally, what does an article's promotion date have to do with the quality of the article? Moogle 07:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That you didn't like the first paragraph is not sufficient grounds to nominate the entire article for featured article removal. How do you know that the rest of the article is horrible if you didn't past the first paragraph? Simoes 03:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Filiocht 09:33, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC) Note only featured since Oct 18. Filiocht 09:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. If you have issues with the text, bring it up on the talk page. This article meets all of the major featured article criteria. - Taxman 14:51, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - what is wrong with it, exactly? It was promoted less than a month ago, on 18 October. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The proposal to remove is weird. It's a great article. Tempshill 18:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ackermann function

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Unintelligible; probably incomprehensible to a general interest reader. Significance of the function is not well explained. The lead section is minimal. The far superior vacuous truth was removed from FA status recently. Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes to this article to (hopefully) help improve it. Admittedly, it's hard for someone not studying computational theory to understand why we should care if a function is primitive recursive or not, but I hope I've at least emphasized how really freaking enormous this function gets, and shortened/clarified some of the long meandering discussion. Feedback is appreciated. Derrick Coetzee 21:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does the function have any utilitarian purpose other than serving as a test of computing power? It might also be improved by a bit more "show your work" to explain how the values of the function get so large so quickly. Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The function was never really intended for any practical use — it predates computers by quite a bit, in fact. It's theoretically important as a recursive function which isn't simple recursive, and it pops up in some algorithm runtimes, and that's really about it. Derrick Coetzee 17:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I might have found it easier to follow if the primitive recursive function article ware also in plain English. While I have a vague idea what recursion is --- life is a recursive process that has a break point determined randomly and always returns a value of 0 --- I'm not sure what recursion is primitive, what isn't, and why non-primitive recursion is important. Smerdis of Tlön 18:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The concept of a primitive recursive function is rather complex; the main idea is that almost all practical functions we use are primitive recursive, and in fact it's hard to come up with a function that isn't. Maybe I'll add this to that article. Derrick Coetzee 18:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could do with more polishing, but good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AC power plugs and sockets

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Was good; is now... not. Has been moved about, now to a rather... odd name, restructured, and generally messed about with. James F. (talk) 15:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Still looks good to me -- Chris 73 Talk 15:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. the name change was the result of americans who can't seem to grasp the term mains such is life but the old name still redirects so its no real biggie

as for the rearangement mess that was the result of the page growing way beyond 32K i've tried to made a start on cleanup but i would to know exactly what you think is wrong Plugwash 17:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - could do with more polishing, but still good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - no reason to remove Kiand 19:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Trigonometric function

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

This has some obvious problems. Quotes:

  • "So much to the premise, but what about the angles, what are they all about?"
  • "(TODO: Show picture here!)"
  • "Whereas this would be principally possible its much nicer to have a indepentent variable, lets call it phi, which does not change the sign during the change from one quadrant into another and is easier to handle (that means not to be neceassarily always a decimal number). !!Notice that all..."
  • "So how can i apply my knowledge now to a circle of any scale"

— Matt 01:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

No picture. --Merovingian✍Talk 18:17, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why does every featured article have to have a picture? A lack of a picture is not good enough reason, IMO, to remove an article's featured article status. I am new to this, so I might be missing something, but then again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a picture book. Could you say what sort of picture would be appropriate for this article? --Conwiktion 15:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Oops, my bad... apparently, a picture is, for some reason, neccesary. Again, sorry, I'm new. If that little thing is all that is lacking, I'll keep an eye out for an appropriate picture or two to make into a montage that is appropriate for the article. I'm not promising anything though...) --Conwiktion 15:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to say this with all the authority I have as the featured article director, and as the one who wrote the FAC directions - by itself, lack of a picuture *IS NOT* suffecient cause for removal. Per se, it simply doesn't meet the prima facie criteria for removal. On the other hand, lack of a supporting picture *is* a valid reason for objection on the FAC (particularly when its addition would greatly enahance an article, such as when describing topics in science or engineering that are inherently abstract). →Raul654 16:30, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Milgram experiment

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Pretty short, and no picture. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:36, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

It has a picture now. --Conti|✉ 17:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Seems long - perhaps slightly overly verbose and lacking overall readability, but this is pretty vague criticism. Anything concrete? --ABQCat 04:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article looks fine to me. →Raul654 04:55, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
PS - it's schedule to go on the main page in a few days. →Raul654 04:56, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a fantastic example of a featured article. -- ke4roh 01:34, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I say keep it. Very informative. Cogently explained. Is there actually a complaint about it? --C S 10:06, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Fine to me. It's even on the front page today. -- user:zanimum

Tuberculosis

[edit]
Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am resubmitting this for consideration. There are no inline sitations, most of the text are bulleted lists, and there is little Wiki-linking. The quality of the writing is poor, and does not generally serve as an example of a FA. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

war elephant

[edit]
Article is still a featured article.

Jumping on the "no elephants in FA" bandwagon, this recent main-page feature is remarkably low on detail for such a colorful subject, needs copyediting and subsectioning, and needs deeper linking to species and military articles. I have suggested it for Peer Review, and think it should be removed from FA in the meanwhile. +sj+ 20:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While not one of our best FAs, it still looks good enough to me. --mav 17:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Mav's assessment. →Raul654 18:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Keep feature status -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

[edit]
User has withdrawn his nomination, therefore the article is still a featured article.

I'd like to suggest removing this one, for several reasons.

  • It includes as fact statements about Mozart that I believe are either unproven (that Mozart heard Beethoven play) or even outright wrong (that the The Magic Flute was a failure at its premiere).
  • It's rambling and unedited, with lots of grammatical errors.
  • The biography cuts out about ten years before Mozart's death, and turns into an unorganized collection of observations.
  • There are various places where editors have taken the opportunity to blurt out their feelings about how wonderful Mozart was, or how wonderful a particular work is. Of course, no one disagrees with these feelings, but they're of no use to an encyclopedia reader who wants to learn about Mozart.

In short, an article that needs some tender loving care (please, help out if you can!), and not really an example of our best. Opus33 04:50, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It may need some work, but it has all of the hallmarks of a great article. Written and web references, a lead section, a picture. It may need some care, but be bold and fix them or discuss these points on the talk page. Be ready with some reputable references to back up your points. But it certainly does not warrant removal. - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Illegal prime

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Honestly, I can't figure out why it was ever featured -- it is a simple, brief article that is grammatically fine, with a few links and a couple of images (put there when we panicked about FAs with no images -- I can't say the images add much to the article). If this is FA quality, I can think of a few tens of thousands of articles around here that qualify also. We have excellent math and computer science contributors here whose work is astonishingly good -- let's not dishonor their work by leaving up such a mediocre article in that field, eh? Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note This article has already been de-featured. - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Removed status August

[edit]

Pattern welding

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Not a featured article. Not even close. →Raul654 02:18, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ha. Support removal. How did this get in there? Ambi 03:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support removal Dmn 15:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support removal. — Matt 00:51, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Support removal ke4roh 01:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Yikes! How did that creep in? Support removal. --mav 06:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Says the one who fixed the FA-template on its talk page. now we know you really are a bot. :) +sj+
Ha, ha. :) --mav
Keep. Add a few external refs and an image, and it would be fine. I don't think it needs an ounce of copyediting. The subject isn't weighty; the article is terse but informative, and seems to cover all the bases. I don't think FA should be limited to long articles, even though articles about elaborate subjects should be long enough to do their subjects justice. Compare my comments on Bremer's bio. +sj+ 05:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Computational complexity theory

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

How on Earth did this get featured? No mention of models of computation. No mention of Turing machines! No explanation of non-determinism. Nothing about randomized algorithms. Nothing about parallel computation and the structure of P. Nothing about reduction. No pictures. No history. Gdr 08:40, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)

  • Support removal. The weird thing is that I don't even see this article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log. When the WP:FA page was new, a lot of people added articles themselves, as the candidate process was kind of unclear. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal; this is nowhere near comprehensive. — Matt 17:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove posthaste. The "notable researchers" section is particularly disturbing; you can hardly do such a list justice, certainly not with only a dozen names. +sj+ 05:10, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Social history of the piano

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article is unformatted, narrow in scope, and incomplete. There is no mention of the impact on society in modern times except for as an electronic keyboard. There is also some NPOV dispute on the talk page. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:56, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal, unless someone cares to bring it to FAC quality (it's certainly far from a hopeless case) - David Gerard 15:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Needs a lead section, sectioning, a picture. — Matt 00:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal.--Neutrality 15:57, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Unusual topics such as this need far more structure than a normal article to place their subject in context and to be comprehensive in content. In this case, little is definitively said about what remains a vague topic, and its specific references seem particularly random. +sj+ 05:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed status September

[edit]

Pufferfish

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

A large part of the featured article Pufferfish was recently moved to fugu (as for Terafugu, the poisonous fish eaten in Japan). When Pufferfish turned into a featured article, it was mainly about fugu, and only later expanded into all fish of the family Tetraodontidae. Now most of the interesting parts of the former article are at fugu. Therefore, I would like to move the nomination to Fugu by nominating Fugu and remove the nomination from Pufferfish. See also Fugu on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. (Disclaimer: I contributed significantly to fugu/pufferfish) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:16, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with removal. --mav 00:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: though lots of interesting bits were removed to Fugu, what exactly is it about this article that makes it a non-featured article? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Note: Fugu failed to get nominated, I will try again in a few months -- Chris 73 Talk 03:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC))

Vacuous truth

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Poorly worded at best. anthony (see warning) 15:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree - There is also no lead section, references, or history about usage. --mav 21:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Golden Gate Park

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.
  • Insufficient information and poor-quality photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've removed it as nobody has expressed an objection. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

It lacks a picture and the 'battle box', I dont see any 'sources' section as well. Hopefully this can be easily fixed, but in its present form it is not up to our current standards, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree but on technical grounds only; no battlebox and no references. --mav 00:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

crushing by elephant

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

This article became featured on March 14, 2004 then Jrincayc edited the article on July 23 with this note: "Removing about half of the article, due to lack of source information. See talk." Now that it's about half of what it used to be, I doubt it should remain FA. -- ke4roh 11:57, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Shame, but if the content stays out, I guess I'll have to support removal. Ambi 00:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Damn - that was such a good article too. But I must agree with de-listing as well. --mav 06:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What's left is still a decent article, but not quite worthy of featured status. --Michael Snow 18:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

L. Paul Bremer

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

this article is so short that it is more a stub than a featured article. how did it become a featured article at all??? just make a comparison with some other featured biography Avala 19:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - David Gerard 19:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • please explain Avala 19:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's substantially bigger than a stub; is there more that could be said about this individual? — Matt 09:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The comment that this is a stub is extreme hyperbole. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:40, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • of course it is not a stub but it doesn`t look like featured either[[User:Avala|Avala|★]] 14:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Similar length to Horatio Nelson (which has an atrocious lead section). The "Trivia" section could be expanded upon, but I don't think that's enough to support delisting. Keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • On second thought, SUPPORT REMOVAL. Hades itself may be under ice by the time his book comes out, Y.B. 8/20/2004
  • Support removal. It doesn't have good external links, crucial to evaluating the accuracy and NPOV of a bio, doesn't discuss third parties' vies of Bremer's tenure in any of his posts, is shorter on detail than the standard FA bio, and could use better subsectioning & layout. On the other hand, seeing this article makes me feel bad about putting war elephants up for removal. +sj+ 20:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It's still here. There should be more written about the Coalition Provisional Authority instead. Y.B. 8/24/2004

History of the English penny

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Article appears to have become the frontpage for a series since its featuring - no longer contains much information at all. The series at large is great, but that specific article, not so much. Snowspinner 16:26, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove from fac or re-consolidate the series into one article. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:02, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • This is so the wrong way to go. We should not re-consolidate to satisfy the whims of the featured article process. It was separated for a reason (its size). But it seems mad that when some text is spread across one long page it is worth featuring but when spread across several it is suddenly not. The obvious solution is to feature sets of articles in their own section. Pcb21| Pete 08:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I implemented this - what do you think? Pcb21| Pete 09:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I think it's not going to get used enough to be worth having as a policy. As for this article, I think that it shouldn't be featured. Not every good thing in Wikipedia needs to be a featured article. Indeed, not every good thing in Wikipedia needs a medal at all. Snowspinner 12:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
          • If past experience is anything to go by, things do get used even if initially you think there is not that much scope for them (indeed FAC and FARC are themselves examples of this). What harm is it doing? Note of as now, the article isn't featured specificially, but the series of which it is part is featured. Pcb21| Pete 13:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. There's problems with this article even a series; the "root" article doesn't introduce the "sub articles". There should be a lot more pictures and illustrations. — Matt 17:35, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • support removal. It really looks terrible, now. And article is an article. A featured article without information, but a series of links? -Pedro 13:44, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Simply moving text to other articles and saying it is then part of a series has got to be one of the most useless and brain dead ways to split an article that there is. Good sized summaries should be left for each new article created. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Peerage had the same problem but was fixed. --mav 22:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal, on the article's merits (not on its division of text). It was a borderline case to begin with. And, for the record, support use of Wikipedia:Long article layout to combine that series into a coherent read, including a proper summary on the first page. +sj+ 20:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed status October

[edit]

Adoption in Rome

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

It's not a bad article as such, but it's very short, and there's absolutely no way it would pass muster today. Ambi 13:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. What is a featured article does not mention "length" as a requirement for a featured article. On the other hand, it can't be comprehensive, and has no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Donegal fiddle tradition

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

Very short, no references, no toc, no images. Filiocht 07:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. Ambi 07:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- Emsworth 20:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. This needs much more informations. Revth 02:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - how did this ever get featured?? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 22:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. This wouldn't get FA status if nominated now. In fact, people would complain as to why it was nominated. jguk 21:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Poker

[edit]
Article is no longer a featured article.

While this is a large wikipedia topic, and deserves a featured article, this article is not up to standards. It is a mix of overview article and topic list. The main article has a quite short text body, and doesn't mention many of the larger subtopics (poker variants should have a section. Poker in culture/film/fiction should have one too). In short; this article needs a lot of update and expanstion to be a featured article. ✏ Sverdrup 20:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - nothing like good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This one doesn't seem as bad to me. If you think it needs a few things, then go fix them. Are these things you think should be added so problematic that they can't be fixed without unfeaturing this? - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • A featured article should not require that level of fixing, and don't think that I would be sufficiently knowledgeable to "go fix them" myself. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ambi 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_to_October_2004&oldid=986296097"