Wikipedia:Featured article review/Read my lips: no new taxes/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 Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [1].
Read my lips: no new taxes[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Read my lips: no new taxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User:SimonP, User:Chavando, the article George H. W. Bush, User:Pburka, User:Tpbradbury, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Conservatism
I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it now at a level far below Featured Article status. Since it was nominated in 2005 it has been overwhelmed by poorly-written trivial information in the 'popular culture' section and I feel that the article in its current form is not comparable to the article that was nominated seven years ago. As well as the trivial information that has crept in, as mentioned, I think the main concern is the amount of unsourced or poorly sourced information; there are very noticeably over 20 CN tags in this relatively short article and the amount has recently increased, rather than decreased. Concerns about the poor standard have been raised several times - e.g. twice since November 2011 - but the only major edits since that time have been to add more CA tags and no real attempts to improve the article have been made.
I think frankly this article is an embarrassment to FA status because of its poor quality. I would suggest that improvements could be made, but they should not be made whilst this article is FA status (I should note that if any major improvements took place then the article would no longer be stable and static). I suggest that the article should be delisted as a Featured Article unless drastic measures are taken very, very soon. -- Peter Talk page 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the many [citation needed] tags, there are a few issues: What makes this or this a reliable source? I removed a far more egregious unreliable source in the form of a lyrics database. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's noticeably below the modern-day standard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Featured article criteria mentioned as problematic in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, nothing has improved in the article except the removal of a couple dubious sources. There are still unsourced segments, and I think the last two sections are too short to stand on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need a second opinion or is there a set time period then the article is delisted? -- Peter Talk page 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.