Wikipedia:Featured article review/Central processing unit/archive1

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 20:34, 24 January 2007.

Central processing unit[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Wackymacs, Video games, Computing, Computer science, and Arcade games. Sandy (Talk) 23:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criteria 1c. Practically nothing in this article is referenced; how are we to know that anything it claims is correct? The refs situation should be improved. -- mattb @ 2006-12-14T21:15Z

A very brief look at the article makes it seem that much of the article consists of summaries of the relevant articles. I don't think summary style requires the references be re-cited in the summary. -- SilverStar ★ 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to relist all the of the references, but any statement that would otherwise require an inline citation should still have one. Jay32183 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the daughter articles aren't referenced either. Sandy (Talk) 06:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It requires inline citations if it wants to keep its FA status. LuciferMorgan 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone here wants to take up that task, it won't happen. I wrote this article and have little intention of adding an inline reference to every third sentence. I feel that the current dogmatic interpretation of WP:V as far as FA standards are concerned is, frankly, ridiculous. I just wanted to nominate this for de-listing myself before someone else got around to it. -- mattb @ 2006-12-15T03:25Z

You probably could have taken it to WP:ARD. Those guys are pretty good at getting inline citations. Jay32183 03:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more citations to support statements and facts throughout the article in all sections. At its current status, this article doesn't live up to current FA standards being met by many other featured articles. — Wackymacs 08:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 07:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with external links, see also, references, and referencing - is anyone working on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. -- mattb @ 2007-01-23T23:16Z

Nobody is working on the article - the FAR nominator and original FA nominator are one and the same. LuciferMorgan 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.