Wikipedia:Featured article review/Claudius/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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:19, 11 October 2010 [1].

Claudius[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article review/Claudius/archive1

Notified: User talk:LaurenCole, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

FA from 2005, with 1c issues throughout - lots of big chunks of completely unsourced and uncited content in the article - this includes entire paragraphs, and issues with subsections. 10 images are used in the article - these should have an image review. At least one image is fair use and is inappropriately used on the page - this image should be removed and/or deleted. Issues with sourcing and WP:RS: appears to be lots of cites to primary sources, these should be avoided with secondary sources preferred, instead. Entire subsection, In literature and film, has zero references whatsoever, and basically no critical commentary about reception of these works. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the sourcing of the literature and film section that bad; the source for the existence and plot of I, Claudius is I, Claudius - and so on. But there are individual claims of fact there which are genuinely unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding the issues:

There's a unsourced statements starting with "Antonia may have had two other children who died young, as well" and "up hope of public office and retired to a scholarly, private life" which is completely unreferenced.
The section "As emperor" has no citations. Fails criteria 1c.
The paragraphs "also put the imperial provinces of Macedonia and Achaea back under Senate control" and "Senate-emperor relations" in the section "Claudius and the Senate" are unreferenced.
There are two dead links like [2] and [3] which are completely dead. The Geocities web site no longer exist.
The section "In literature and film" has no citations or footnotes.
This image File:IClaudius.JPG has no rationale or source. Fails WP:NFCC and criteria 3. JJ98 (Talk) 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My observations:
- As pointed out by nominator, loads of unsourced content. Statements like "However, as the Flavians became established, they needed to emphasize their own credentials more, and their references to Claudius ceased. Instead, he was put down with the other emperors of the fallen dynasty." should really be sourced.
- Does "marriages and personal life" need the subsections? Every subsection is super short.
- None of the external links looks like it's reliable. They all appear to be personal websites. We shouldn't have had a link to Geocities on there in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern is sources YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per concerns raised, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my concerns, and per review by Cirt and TPH. Concerns not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.