Biocrawler:Featured article removal candidates

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

fr:Wikipédia:Articles de qualité/Contestations et retraits

Featured Article Tools
Featured articles / Featured log Featured article candidates Featured article criteria Today's featured article Tomorrow's featured article Featured article removal candidates Former featured articles Collaboration of the week This week's improvement drive

Procedure

If you feel an article on Biocrawler:Featured articles should no longer be featured, then this is the place where an article is nominated for demotion. Only pages that do not adhere to the featured article criteria may be listed. Objections raised must be actionable.

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 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, and added to the list of Former Featured Articles. All discussions will be logged at Biocrawler:Featured article removal candidates/archive.

Contents

1 Procedure 2 Articles nominated for removal 2.1 Calvin and Hobbes 2.2 Humphrey Bogart 2.3 Vowel 2.4 Belgium 2.5 World War I

Articles nominated for removal

Add new nominations on top.

Calvin and Hobbes

Too much infodumping about single-strip gags, poor citation of sources, and little discussion of the strip's significance or its influence on later artists. I have tried to move the more peripheral (or less verifiable) information to subsidiary pages, like Calvin and Hobbes in translation. Still, there is more in "Recurring themes" than rightly belongs in the main article. There is probably a nice, strong FA within this page, struggling to get out. Anville 18:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. Actually isn't clear there is any use of references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)</sup>

• Keep. "Significance" and "influence" can be slippery and subjective; if it's a solid exposition of what's within the four corners of the strip, that should be good enough. The rest can be added. Monicasdude 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove its very good, but appears to be based almost entirely on Watterson's writings in the 10th Anniversary book. Peregrine981 03:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove - Agree with Anville and Taxman. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart

I think this is a very detailed article. Just a pity it has zero citations or references. The user Taxman made a request for references on the article's talk page almost two months ago, and has received no response. Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove, no references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)</sup>
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • For who to fix? The article was written by an anon three years ago. There are no requests for references on the various anon talk page. Asking for references on this article in the above manner was almost certainly doomed to fail. Besides all the info in the article looks just like the stuff that would be verified in one of the biographies of Bogie that could be put as further reading. Do no t remove. Pcb21| Pete 07:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It could be, but hasn't been. If you've got a better method to get the 100 odd FA's that have no references to a higher standard I'm all ears. And it certainly is not doomed to failure, it worked for about 40 articles. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)</sup>

I did take a look at the page's edit history before I submitted it as a FARC, but I think that as far as this discussion is concerned (i.e. whether the article stays featured or not), the age of this article doesn't really matter. The fact remains that the article does not contain any references, and thus does not meet the featured article criteria. Extraordinary Machine 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep, good article, give Taxman more time to fix references--Fenice 15:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I have neither the familiarity with the subject matter nor the available references to cite this properly. But apparently neither has anyone else, since it has none. - Taxman ^Talk 20:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)</sup>
• Keep, as Pete. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vowel

This article does not meet featured article criteria on the following grounds:

• Unattributed statements: "Some linguists claim..." This statement is blatantly partisan and must have names added if it is true; if it is false it must be removed.
• There are no references. Help make Biocrawler the most authoritative source of information in the world and add references. There is no policy that says the reference criteria is not retroactive. It has been more than a year since that requirement was added, and more than a month since Taxman made a request for them.
• The section on vowels in written langauges is inadequate, incomplete, and uncomprehensive: How about Armenian, Burmese, or Greek; for Japanese there are too few characters? Why is there Russian instead of the Cyrillic?
• There is a paragraph on intonation. It says that it depends on syntax. How does this differ from phonation, and if it about syntax, why is it here?
• The section on vowel systems seems to not be comprehensive. Do those 3-vowel systems "spread out" with lots of allophony, or are they really that limited in distribution?

It is quite good an article, but it is most definitely not featured quality. It needs peer review badly. Michelle T 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. No references - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)</sup>
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Belgium

This article has several problems

• No citation at all, and no references
• It is poorly written and seems amatureish, plus it is in dire need of trimming/rewriting/editing
• There is only one image that is not a map, and even the maps are of poor quality
• The links are not organised in any way
• The article is slightly biased towards the Flemmish government

Definitely NOT featured standard, if you ask me! Páll 07:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove. No references. Lead is too short. Lot's of tiny paras. Nominated a year ago. A good example of how our standards are evolving. This would not pass a FA today. Remove and send to PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. No references. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)</sup>
• Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I have just added {{farc}} to Talk:Belgium (4½ days after it was first nominated). I think we should give its regular editors a chance to respond to this criticism. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think there would be any problem with starting the clock based on that time instead. Just gives more time to fix it if someone is able. - Taxman ^Talk 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)</sup>

World War I

It has several problems.

• Virtually no citation, and very scanty suggested reading/sources
• Inequitable coverage of the war, favouring the beginning and ending
• Inadequate coverage of non-military aspects such as domestic politics, labour organisation, legal changes, finance, etc...
• Although coverage is generally balanced, there is still missing information about secondary parties, ie. Serbia, Turkey Peregrine981 15:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - it is good enough for me. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Didn't this just reach FA status not that long ago? 205.217.105.2 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No - I've had a look but can't locate the FAC discussion, so it must be some while ago; but it was FARCed only this February. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an old school FA - it's been an FA for at least 14 months, probably longer. →Raul654 07:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Where is the FARC discussion? I don't see it in the archive. - Taxman Talk</sup> 15:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • It was "archived" by ContiE on 19 June, after my comment above - [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biocrawler:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive&diff=15460024&oldid=15455362). It has gone to Biocrawler:Featured_article_removal_candidates/archive/January_to_March_2005. I'll add a link to the archive page. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. Bottom line is I'd object if I saw this on FAC. Lot's of short paras. Timeline ('The spread of war') should be moved to Timeline of World War I. Aftermath section is a joke - 3 lines? That might have been impressive 2 or so years ago. Today it's a good article for Peer Review. It's close to FA, but not close enough. Take it down unless objections are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep'; that is not the bottom line at all for me. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you see some things you don't like, go fix them. Add the things you think it needs. In general though, this is pretty good. - Taxman ^Talk 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)</sup>
• Comment One of the main requirements for a featured articles is that it should be "Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details." However, this article omits large fields of knowledge, not simply a few facts or details. I have added much to this article, in fact there was absolutely no discussion of non-military aspects. However, I do not personally have an in depth personal knowlege of all such aspects, or of the progress of the war in the mid-east, balkans, italy, etc... I don't really buy the argument that it may not be featured quality, but it eventualy will be as an argument for keeping it. Peregrine981 02:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• keep - this is a pretty good article, none of the above are good reasons to take it off the list.--Fenice 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)