Wikipedia:Featured article review/Common scold/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 kept 15:08, 25 January 2007.

Common scold[edit]

Messages left at Ihcoyc and UK notice board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely needs FARC. I suspect it was promoted before FA guidelines were really established. No references (1c) is only its most obvious fault. Wwwhhh 09:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it needs FARC. It's ridiculous to have this as a Featured Article. It does not abide by Criteria 1a (well written), 1c (factually accurate-verifiability), 2a (proper lead). Also 1b (comprehensive) can be doubted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article fails 1. c. mainly, and 2. a. also (haven't looked at the article long enough to assess how well written it is, and as regards being uncomprehensive, I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter). LuciferMorgan 21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - By the standards of two years ago, this was a well referenced article. It still is, in my opinion: the sources are named, quoted, and given in text, rather than being assigned to footnotes. There are a few in-text external links that could be converted into a separate reference section if need be. As to its comprehensiveness, it attempts to answer the questions raised on the talk page. On the other hand, much of the original tone has been edited out of the article's prose in the name of NPOV. - Smerdis of Tlön 07:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've done a little work on it. It still needs some work on the lead and referencing for historical cases, but I agree with Smerdis of Tlön that we don't need footnotes when the sources are fully-referenced as part of the body of the article (and in some cases have their own articles). Yomangani^talk 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've hopefully fixed the outstanding issues as well now (had more time than I thought). Yomangani ^talk 11:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Are people happy with Yomangani's changes? Is the nominator still around with a comment to provide? Marskell 07:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied with Yomangani's work, but all websources need full info (e.g.; last retrieval date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor blip - fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status: I've asked the nominator if s/he has any more comments. Marskell 21:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I still don't think this is FA quality (if it were nominated today, it would have a tough time getting through), I don't mind if if it is kept or removed. Wwwhhh 02:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: While this may not seem to have the meat of an ordinary FA, no criteria issues remain outstanding in the above comments. LEAD is improved, refs sufficient and properly formatted, no comprehensiveness issues were specifically raised, and length alone is not a criterion. We even a new pic. So a keep. Marskell 15:05, 25 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.