Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/November and December 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Newer nominations are at the top.

Contents

[edit] RISC

Article is no longer a featured article.

Was promoted in 2003, well before we really had any featured article standards. It's long and somewhat detailed, but I don't think it's awfully well written. It also has no references - at all - and no picture. In addition, there's a few factual concerns raised on the talk page, which don't appear to have been dealt with. It hasn't really had much attention in months - and needs it. It might be nice to send this to peer review - it's not so bad that it couldn't be a FA again with a bit of effort. Ambi 07:38, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Remove, refer to Peer Review. Neutralitytalk 03:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. It's not exactly typical Wikipedia style, but the anon praise on the talk page is right: it's quite lucid and addresses many relevent points. I'd recommend adding more sectioning, condensing it, and adding more illustrative images and examples, but I think it's quite worthy as it stands. Deco 07:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Remove and do as suggested. A thorough going-over, with references this time, could probably restore the article's featurability. --Michael Snow 00:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove - no references, not worthy of FA status. --Neoconned 15:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not terribly well written, no references. Not so far from a FA that it couldn't gain it again with some work. So I don't think it should be a big deal to remove it and wait till it meets those important criteria before it gets back in. - Taxman 04:24, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Article is still a featured article.

Has been featured ever since I started watching it. Since then, it has been changed beyond recognition, and is undergoing major rewriting - and imho improvement - now. It sees to be another case of a legacy FA that we are now shocked to find is featured at all -- but my point is not to retro-actively apply present principles, but rather that the present article has very little to do with what was featured at some point in the past. dab (ᛏ) 10:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. --Rikurzhen 12:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. Not sure it is turning into something better but it's not worse, and it originally belonged in FA. JDG 23:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is good but it needs slight improvement, especially by ilinking many terms and incorporating terms from see also. I suggest removing it and adding to FAC, that should do the trick. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal - The article could use a good refactor (some sections have gotten a bit small after content was moved to daughter articles while other sections are a bit large), but I still think it is still good enough to be FA. --mav 03:15, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Much of this article concerns the highly debated topic of whether human races are biologically valid/useful. Most of the arguments presented are unattributed, phrased in weasel terms, and repeated endlessly throughout the article. It's not as bad as it was before I started major edits, but it's still going to take quite some time to fix. -- Schaefer 11:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm I can see we are headed for some tussling here if I ever get back to really sitting down to this article again. I'm afraid I don't view your changes as improvements, overall. One man's "weasel terms" may be another's balance terms. You may be missing some of the subtle differences between the statements that struck you as endlessly repetitive. Above all, your shuffling off much of the best material to daughter articles sends the reader on an unecessary clickfest (this is a subset of the 32kb "limit" controversy)... When Race was promoted to FA there was still a fair amount wrong with it (especially some very clunky phrasing), but the Wikipedians who saw there was even more right with it carried the day. You kinda insult them all when you dismiss the FA version as such a stinker and maybe you would do well to acquire a little more respect for their judgment (and I'm not saying this because I was a contributor-- at least three others had much more to do with it). JDG 05:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still FA standard. :ChrisG 13:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
comment: I actually agree that it is FA standard now. It wasn't one or two months ago. dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leonardo da Vinci

Article is no longer a featured article.

Mostly lists. Nowhere near comprehensive. Sources are inadequate. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal, I've been thinking about listing this myself. Fredrik | talk 00:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. — Matt Crypto 01:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal, even though I have just improved the article at least 50% by removing the absurd disambiguation notice at the top.--Bishonen (talk) 21:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not enough article material, too many lists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Nowhere near comprehensive enough. :ChrisG 13:08, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bloodletting

Article is no longer a featured article.

No sources, only external links. Not comprehensive. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. A bit on the short side. Could probably be kept with a bit of effort, however. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agreed and agreed, nothing more to say. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:55, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 16:27, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - The excessive links in this article are appalling. I'm trying to fix some of them. Deco 07:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with links throughout. No article containing "[[red]]-and-[[white]]-striped [[pole (object)|pole]]" should ever be featured. I'm sure it still has other problems though. Deco 08:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Razi

Article is no longer a featured article.

Mostly lists and long quotes. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Parts of it isn't bad, but someone really needs to clean up the crackified formatting if it's to stay featured. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove in present state, but I hope somebody knowledgeable sees it has gotten farced and goes to work on it. Besides the long lists, it has only one image, which looks pretty copyright to me (no info supplied by uploader).--Bishonen (talk) 22:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Somebody needs to make this into an article, lengths is not everything. Lists and quotes, bah. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I would agree the article has clear flaws given the increasingly high standards for a featured article; I do not believe this article has major problems, since the content is both comprehensive, informative and referenced. The fact the article uses non standard formatting is not appropriate grounds for removal. It attained featured status, I assume legitimately, and if we decide to remove this article then we would should by the same standards remove over half the articles that have featured status, because they have more major problems. :ChrisG 13:04, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martha Stewart

Article is no longer a featured article.

Not comprehensive. Neutrality/talk 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. The amount of information on the trial far outweighs that on the rest of her life, which is more notable anyway. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with Ambi, the non-trial related material is skimpy (and dull) and the trial section ghoulishly oversized and over-detailed. The pre-trial material has only recently been half-assedly updated: "She... began restoration of an 1805 farmhouse which is occasionally seen in her television programs (though she uses a stage environment for many shots) and where she still lives today (until her 2004 incarceration)." And what's with the sneer about how her book Weddings came out on the same day as her husband filed for divorce, har, har? I miss an analytical section, summarising something--anything!--interesting about the iconic significance and influence of Stewart in her heyday, from good secondary sources. There is no such thing as analysis in the external links provided, either, they're pretty bad. Incidentally, the claim on the Talk page, that yes, Stewart does look like the image in the article (supposedly a "personal photo" donated to Wikipedia, believe it if you will) is nonsense, of course. She's 63. She looks fine, I found some recent pics on the web, but she looks nothing like that image. An unfortunately poor article on a subject with potential.--Bishonen (talk) 23:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. She is famous for a reason, and was so well before her trial. Also the article has no references. - Taxman 12:58, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Ideally the scandal/trial should be its own article with a single section summary left in the Martha Stewart article. But the whole article needs to be expanded a lot before that will be needed. --mav 03:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Leopold and Loeb

Article is no longer a featured article.

Fairly well written, but it is so short that it is hard to believe it is complete. Also the talk page points out factual errors that have not been fixed or refuted. It also has no references. - Taxman 23:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Enclave

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article is mostly lists of enclaves, so it is not comprehensive. For example it has very little on the impact or importance of enclaves, and little on how they happen or are fixed. Not the greatest writing either, and has no references. - Taxman 23:37, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Kreisky

Article is no longer a featured article.

Doesn't quite mix it with the other political biographies in the section. It's got no proper lead, no section headings, and it isn't truly comprehensive. It could, for instance, have gone into detail about his actions during the kidnap of the OPEC ministers. Dbiv 00:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with the above comments. Evil Monkey → Talk 01:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, remove. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Is poorly organized, no lead section. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Agree with the above. - Taxman 23:30, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • It could use a table. Ground 22:00, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • And no references. Remove. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:04, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lollapalooza

Article is no longer a featured article.

Minus the large list of lineups by year and the lead section, it is barely a page. Very hard to believe it is complete. Also has no references. - Taxman 02:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey 04:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Yet again a mediocre article mysteriously promoted by Maveric149. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:18, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's nothing myseterious about it. This was a holdover from the brilliant prose days. Mav did not 'promote' it - he simply happens to be the one who tagged it. →Raul654 09:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
    • What is mysterious is the reason why this article was seen as brilliant prose at all as I don't think it is, or was in March of this year. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • There is nothing "mysterious" about it, and your tone is less than cordial. All I did was put the featured tag on every article that was then a featured article. I DID NOT PROMOTE THOSE ARTICLES! Please do a little research before making statements like that in the future or else your words may backfire and just make you look rude and illinformed. --mav 02:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I think we had somewhat lower standards then. Now are standards are much higher, which means we're becoming a better encyclopedia. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Not particularly well organized or written and largely just lists. Could use more references. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. — Matt Crypto 00:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Parthenon

Article is still a featured article.

No sources, only external links. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. Author's credibility makes up for lack of sources. Fredrik | talk 00:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Excellent article, lack of sources are not a reason to remove from featured articles, and also what Frederik said. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It certainly could be a reason to remove them. Just depends on what we want. No article should pass now without them, so why should articles be allowed to stay without them? I think references are important enough. See Talk:Art in Ancient Greece#Lack of References. One writer or reference would be unacceptable for any serious academic work, so why shouldn't we strive to exceed that minimum ideal here? - Taxman 02:24, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal Filiocht 08:57, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mixed-breed dog

Article is still a featured article.

Sources are inadequate. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal. Comprehensive, and lack of references is not a reason for removal from featured articles. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Agree with Ambi. Filiocht 08:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Barack Obama

Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 00:26, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep/Oppose removal. Comprehensive, and a rare example of a good article on an American politician. Ambi 01:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Filiocht 08:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. What needs to be added? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:05, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution

Article is no longer a featured article.

Lots of information, but it reads like a list, no references, lead section includes huge amounts of definitions, poor section structure etc. Don't understand how it ever became a featured article. :ChrisG 22:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Also has no images. Can't find where the discussion for it was either. fac added 06:12, Apr 11, 2004 and then changed to featured on 04:32, Jun 21, 2004 according to talk page. Not sure whats gone on--Evil Monkey 23:43, Dec 5, 2004
  • Remove. Seems generally NPOV, not the best prose, and the author seems prone to ramble. I hope other feature articles aren't this mediocre. Triped 05:15, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see too much wrong with it, although it could do with a bit of a brush-up. Note that it did have pictures when it was nominated - they may have been deleted for copyright reasons. Ambi 05:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You say it had pictures when it was nominated, I can't seem to find the nomination in the FAC archives, did you find it somewhere? -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:37, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Lots of good material, but it needs to be put together a bit more coherently. (It was promoted on 20 June 2004 by Snoyes. This is a diff between the current version and then version when it was promoted: [1] It had two images, Image:Gay brothel.png and Image:Street Prostitution.jpg.) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Some good stuff, but needs a fair bit of work to get up to standard, IMO. 1) Lead section is huge; it needs to be shorter and a discussion of terminology should probably be in its own section. 2) Needs illustration 3) Bullet-points are overused. — Matt 16:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Some good material, but also some very bad writing. Numerous tremendously POV and unencyclopedic comments. - Taxman 04:11, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Too many lists. Jacob1207 18:35, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak

Article is no longer a featured article.

Incomplete. Mentions it is the second biggest without mentioning what is the biggest. Barely mentions the effects it had in disaster alerts. Many one sentence paragraphs, and doesn't flow very well. Oh, yeah, no references either. - Taxman 17:54, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. Also seems to be too short--Evil Monkey 07:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. A ton more could be written about this topic. --Spangineer 13:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gram Parsons

Article is no longer a featured article.

Very short, lacks references, 1 sentence lead section, and is about 35% list. Raul654 (talk • contribs) 11:06, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Huh? It's almost 7K long and has 5 sections, including a 9-paragraph biography. One list contains 3 references; the other ("Discography") isn't particularly long and is standard for a musician. Both are dwarfed by the bio. All of this has been in place since November 1. Are you sure you have the right article? — Jeffq (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It's got "for further reading", which is not the same as a references section. The combined lists of External links, Further reading, Samples, and Discography are over a third of the article. The biography itself is barely a page long. Raul654 (talk • contribs) 11:34, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are other, much better articles on musicians. This article simply fails to meet many of the featured article criteria. - Taxman (talk • contribs) 15:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove; there isn't even a critical review. There is nothing special about this article. :ChrisG 11:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. I tried to improve the intro a bit, but this needs a lot of work. Not comprehensive, no references, poor lead section. Oh, and I forgot, I'm not sure that pic qualifies as fair use. - Taxman 15:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey (talk • contribs) 07:42, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Neutrality (talk • contribs) 03:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dreyfus affair

Article is no longer a featured article.

Lacks structure, no lead section, no references, Image:Dreyfus3.jpg lacks tag, although it might not need a lot of work to get it up to standards, depending on whether it is complete at all, I lack the knowledge to decide that. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, for the reasons above. - Taxman
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page is just the main article in a 7 page article. It appears from a cursory glance that the other pages in the series are up to the featured article standard--Evil Monkey 20:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)Remove. After digging deeper found that most of the articles appears to be wikified etc. --Evil Monkey 20:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. I concur with the remarks of Solitude. Jacob1207 05:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Villain

Article is no longer a featured article.

Far from comprehensive, it should provide information on the many different villainous archetypes, on their usage in different media over the course of history, etc. The list of quotes is out of place, there are no references. Article could also use externals and references to literature. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, I had come to the same conclusion. - Taxman 22:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, just an introduction. :ChrisG 11:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It's quite a nice essay, there's just nothing encyclopedic about it. I tried to think how I could help the article go deeper, not to mention wider, but decided it's hopeless. The contributors have done a good job, it's the subject itself that's the problem. The concept is too huge and vague and variable, it's just a bad idea to bring encyclopedic pretensions to it. It's like trying to catch a cloud in a net.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. It is a diffuse mess that strays from the core of the topic, the quotes are unnecessary and just clutter things up, and the pictures don't help either. Someone needs to break out the Weed wacker and whack about 3/4 of the article away, and then build up something with more structure and coherence. On second thought, the best thing might be to make this a disambiguation page, and then have separate articles for Villains in literature, Film villains, and perhaps even Cultural villains. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Montparnasse

Article is no longer a featured article.

I'm listing this and the above two articles suggested by ALoan, all three lack references, but all three also have more issues than that alone. Montparnasse lacks structure, the lead section is badly written and reads like a list. Further more there are no references (could also use some external links). -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:22, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. - Taxman 22:03, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, not structured, not especially good. :ChrisG 11:53, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] White Rose

Article is no longer a featured article.

How the hell did this pass? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. I have checked the nomination archives, I can't find the nomination anywhere so I assume the tag was added by mistake. I have contacted Mav, who added the template, to ask if it was a mistake or perhaps the nomination got lost. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:42, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Response: I was simply adding the message to each article that was already listed as an FA - there was no editorial decision on my part. Many of those listed items at that time did not go through any process other than somebody adding them and nobody removing them. -- mav 07:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - see the talk page - quite a few articles that became "featured" on 15 March, like this one, are pretty poor - for example, Dreyfus affair, Montparnasse, Villain. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. And yes, please list those too, ALoan. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove--Evil Monkey 20:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very nice account of a very important group. Size is not everything, gentleman. muriel@pt 08:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is well written, but is it comprehensive? The German version has a nicer image (from which our image seems to be a poor copy of a small part) and the text of the German version could help to round ours out (my German is not up to the task). Some additional off-line research and paper references could help. Perhaps it really needs a good peer review? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I uploaded the photo to commons and to this article. I agree it could be improved. My german is pretty good but i'm afraid the topic really gets to my nerves. I'm tired of hearing all the time germans did this and that in WW2 by people who cant tell the difference between a german and a nazi. This article shows that germans were not only blood thirsty fascist murderers. muriel@pt 14:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Moreover, i find commentaries like How the hell did this pass? extremely irritating. And it was not added by mistake. This was featured in a time when the above gentlemen where probably not in wikipedia. I nominated it, actually. muriel@pt 14:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Neutrality probably did not mean to offend. This article simply comes nowhere close to the level of quality that very many articles coming through WP:FAC do. If you have the ability, please improve it significantly and let us know. If it improves a lot, people will change their votes quickly. - Taxman 02:43, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Negligence

Article is no longer a featured article.

No lead, no references and far from complete, the sectioning is also unbalanced. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:22, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove, unless someone deals with the above issues (at least it has a - tangentially relevant - image now). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd definitely say remove. I don't see how it's a featured article, actually. There is no discussion about the theoretical justification for a negligence law, or its theoretical place within civil or criminal law. The actual explanation of the law reads like a basic text book explanation, it doesn't go any deeper into debates and questions about any of the criterion. Is the reasonable person/man standard inherently sexist? Should efficiency (law & economic) concerns underly the breach aspect? Is an economic analysis (with WTP at the hart) classist? More broadly, what is the aim of negligence? Deterrence (ie establishing norms of safety and taking an a priori view of decision making cf a posteriori), punishment and compensation are alcompetin answers, and each lead to different results in any particular case. This is a bare sketch of negligence law, it should never have been featured. Psychobabble 01:46, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. Ambi 04:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. No references is enough for me, the incompleteness and lack of lead just adds to that. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indus Valley Civilization

Article is no longer a featured article.

The article has been cleaned up some (including rm copyvio) since it was FA of the day on Nov 22. However, it never seems to have been properly featured in the first place. It was nominated by User:Wetman on Jan 9 [2],. There were no comments, and on Feb 15, User:Lord Emsworth added the featured template [3]. I do not think it is very far away from FA status now, but since it has been substantially changed since January, it would certainly do no harm to send it through FAC again. dab 13:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • If it was never actually featured the tag should be removed and if appropriate the article can be renominated. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 09:21, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal and re-nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with above, support removal and renom. - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry of the United States

Article is still a featured article.

This article doesn't read as a coherent whole; uses jargon without explanation; and is far from comprehensive. On coherence: The first and seventh sections attempt (but largely fail) actually to discuss the subject at hand. Sections two to six do not even do this: they are a slightly enlarged version of a list of American poets. Indeed, it's difficult to get an idea of what the main themes in American poetry really have been. On jargon: there's lots of it that's unexplained. Eg there's a whole section on modernism which doesn't even say what modernism is, and surrealism is used without explanation too. On lack of comprehensiveness: The (poorly written) lead section mentions by the end of the millennium (what's wrong with century) there was an "increased emphasis on poetry by women, Afro-Americans, Hispano-Americans and other subcultural groupings". The article proper does not mention this at all, with no discussion whatsoever on Afro-American and Hispano-American poetry. This is far from being an example of one of Wikipedia's best articles. jguk 20:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are clear links to both modernist poetry in English and surrealism. I'm sure the article could be improved in many ways. Charles Matthews 07:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I know I have a vested interest, but I find most of the reasons for delisting given both vague and subjective. As for the 'jargon', these terms are linked for readers who want more info. This article is not the place to explain modernism or surrealism, for example. The major theme in American poetry is the emergence of an American poetic idiom and this is covered in the article. After that, there are as many themes as there are poets, or more even. Like any other article, this one could be improved, but FAs are not expected to be perfect. Filiocht 08:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
This from the talk page leads me to believe that the objection is based on the fact that there are words in the article that the objector is not familiar with. The same would be true for me reading a maths article, but that would not make it an invalid use of those words. In this case, words like 'writerly' have a precise meaning that is the exact fit needed. This is what dictionaries are for. Filiocht 13:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
A featured article should be accessible to all. Certainly one on a broad subject with a title that sounds like an introduction to the subject of US poetry. Jargon in a general article like this, if used at all, should be explained. In short, the article should be standalone. I note you have not addressed my other comments. Is that because you agree with them? ;) jguk 20:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree that a featured article should be "accessible to all". The purpose of a good article should be to inform the reader: part of that task is accomplished by using appropriate vocabulary. I agree that needless puffery should be trimmed from featured articles, but in articles where the words are difficult (and perhaps unfamiliar to many) yet necessary for the sake of precision, we can't remove them. There are many featured articles that contain words I do not know. I don't take that as a sign they shouldn't be featured. I may (if I like) take it as a sign I should consult my dictionary. As to the other complaints, I feel some of them are a bit vague, but I'll look at the article more closely and see if they can be addressed. Jwrosenzweig 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After further discussion on the article talk page, I find little merit in this application for delisting. Sure, the article could be improved with more work — goes without saying (must be 1000 poets in its scope). But the standalone business is more like self-righteousness than a serious comment on how to write WP. Linking off a central page like this is only common sense, and trying to discuss all the implications on the page itself is really not the way forward. Charles Matthews 09:40, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. Generally a very complete article. If it has jargon you don't understand bring it up on the talk page and see what you can help do to make the article easier to understand. But also, I'm sure there are a large number of good print references available on this subject. Filiocht, et al, can you guys put some together? I'll try to take care of properly formatting the external links used as references, thats my bugaboo. A little worse than I thought. Only the first site listed as a reference seems to be able to be reliably used as one. The others seem like standard external links. - Taxman 19:14, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Hitchcock

Article is no longer a featured article.

Really, I find it shocking that this article was ever even considered for featured status. I find it disturbing that it is on the main page...people will visit it and get the wrong idea of what we mean by "very well-written and complete". I have raised issues at the talk page; little has been done to address these. In general, the writing quality is rather poor, at about the level of C+ freshman high school English class. The article has poor organisation, coherence, and transitions between sections. It is incomplete in many regards, esp. w/ regard to film criticism and theory. It reads like a laundry list of random facts and observations. It needs a lot of work. I believe many people here are confusing length, # of edits, and some pictures and links with real quality (compare to baseball, which appears similar but is actually very well-written and organised). Unfortunately, this is another piece of evidence for the claim of the recent EB author, that articles are "edited into mediocrity". Revolver 03:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. it seems that a WP article will rise to a certain (maybe highschool graduate :) quality automatically, but to keep it above this level requires constant effort and vigilance. dab 14:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, the Hollywood section is especially horrid, it lacks references as well. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:45, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - Taxman 13:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

Article is no longer a featured article.

Article fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Specifically, edit war over the "anti-fremasonry" intro-paragraph is distressing - and it is ongoing after concerns raised on the talk page: [4] (post WP:V comments), [5] (post WP:V comments), [6] (pre WP:V comments). Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • What "anti-freemasonry" opening paragraph? Furthermore, the featured template clearly identifies the featured article as a previous version (with link), so what exactly is the point of removing the template off the page otgher than for the sake of your doing osmething to it? There is no claim that the present article is featured, and it doesn't change the fact that it was at one time featured. Also, what is the point of claiming removal based on V and NPOV violations after placing an "edit lock for reference re-edit" template on said article? MSJapan 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    The paragraph in the diffs I provided. This is not the only failure of the article as it now stands. The template for previously featured articles is {{FormerFA}}. This article is far too long, lacks pictures or illustrative graphics throughout, and a host of other things that make it not featured anymore. It's not your fault that it's been driven to the dirt by problematic editors over the past few months, but it's not an example of the best of the best anymore. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree This article has changed since it was featured, and has been the subject of many edit wars. Ardenn 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree All you need to do is look at the difference[7] between the featured version of the article and the current article, and you can see they are completly different. It needs to reapply. Seraphim 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Also i'd like to note that Freemasonry became a Featured article before the Criteria were established. Even in it's older state it was never checked against our current Featured article standards. Seraphim 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree Unfortunately the revert wars and poor POV editing have been on both sides of a pro/anti Masonic dispute.--Vidkun 18:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Why, suddenly, do some users think it's so NPOV? It hasn't changed so so much w/o citation of one kind or another. & it is, actually, fairly well cited, if one actually reads the Notes, See Also section, The External links, the Catagory:Freemasonry articles (& if one really wants to do their homework, Catagory:Freemasons), & especially if one goes through the 12 archived talk pages. This article didn't get to be featured by being bad, poorly cited, & it's no less cited now. There's a lot of hard work by a lot of people here. They often dispute eachother, & nearly as often come to terms & learn to compromise. This issue takes immense homework reading nearly endless pages & links to even discuss, but by all means, read away. Grye 09:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the featured article version, and the current version they have 0 similiarites. (i put a diff link in my comment). Also just because something is cited doesn't mean it's NPOV. Seraphim 10:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree-Any article that suffers from NPOV and merge issues should not be considered a featured article anymore. NorseOdin 14:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The only merge issues This article suffers from is others merging into it. Nobody ever rightly said "This article should be merged into that one
'Your userpage article could suffer from NPOV if someone throws the tag on it. Grye 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Who put the NPOV tags on this article recently? When did the current ones first appear, like in the last month? Grye 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
If they were not there now, I would reinsert them - "It is referred to in Macoy's Masonic Manual as "a beautiful system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols."" - "Freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to progressively explore ethical and philosophical issues, and that the system is less effective if the observer knows beforehand what will happen." It's "less effective" and that is an obvious fact? And that's just the intro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hipocrite (talk • contribs).
  • Strong remove. An article that is protected, subject to 2 seperate merge discussions, a npov dispute, and edit warring does not "exemplify our very best work". Article hence fails on 1 of WIAFA. Mikkerpikker ... 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree, with some sadness and anger. Articles on subjects relating to Freemasonry have been the subjects of edits that are hard to accept as good faith (see Jahbulon) and this is no exception. Smerdis of Tlön 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree - The article is just as good as any other FA, one of the reasons it suffers is because it is a contervesial issue, and that the page is frequently vandalised. I don see any reasoable argument for its removal, for the most part only biased POV claims that do not seem to have much backing to them. Avador 04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

Article is no longer a featured article.

I request that this article be taken off featured article status due to it being the centre of frequent edit wars and having its neutrality and factual accuracy disputed. Vacuum | tcw 02:38, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

  • (Not a vote) Sigh.... Raul's 5th law is a harsh mistress. →Raul654 03:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't necessarily dispute the factual accuracy or NPOV of the article, I just noticed that they were disputed and that a rule exists that such articles should not be featured. Vacuum | tcw 00:20, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Edit wars are no reason for removal -- Chris 73 Talk 04:02, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, they are - "A featured article should... Be uncontroversial in its neutrality and accuracy (no ongoing edit wars)." →Raul654 04:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected, and vote Neutral for now, since I cannot judge if the NPOV dispute is justified or not -- Chris 73 Talk 06:02, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal of any article where accuracy and/or NPOV are under dispute. Filiocht 09:36, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh dear - support removal until it reaches a stable state. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. The article is not that bad, in fact I don't see any major problems. Anyone can come in an say they object to the material, and that should not automatically remove an article from featured status. It appears that disputes are being successfully discussed on the talk page. I see some issues in POV, that no discussion exists of the negative effects of zionism in this article, but overall it is not such a bad article that it should be removed. - Taxman 14:44, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • The question is, can we say that this is one of Wikipedia's best, and then have the reader see that its accuracy/POV is under dispute? I am inclined to think not. Filiocht 14:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • So then I can place a disputed template at the top of any featured article and it should be removed as a featured article? - Taxman 17:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • If there is an actual dispute about POV or factual accuracy, particularly if there is an edit war, then yes, the article should have its Featured status suspended or removed. If someone capriciously adds dispute notice, then no, it should not be removed. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • In general, I have chosen to interpret and act on the policy (wrt disputes on featured articles) as follows - give them (the disputants) a few days to sort it out before listing it here. By the same token, disputes that take a long while to sort out should cause the article to be de-featured. →Raul654 21:13, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
            • This has been in dispute for almost a month now. Filiocht 16:01, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
              • Then I agree - take it down. Sigh... →Raul654 19:02, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] End Times

Article is still a featured article.

This article looks as if it has been restricted to just a few sets of viewpoints. It seems highly POV. CheeseDreams 20:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article is reasonably explicit about the viewpoints it is supposed to be about: the adventist, dispensationalist, and Jehovah's Witness beliefs that various current events indicate an imminent apocalypse. Can somebody be more specific about what viewpoints are supposed to be neglected? Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because the article makes clear what its purpose is, doesn't mean that the article is NPOV. "End times" is clearly an end-of-the-world concept, but I see nothing here about non-Christian ends of the world, like the Norse Ragnarok. Are there similar concepts in Chinese, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Japanese, Maori, or other cultures? One would not know from this article. The phrase "end times" may be, in English, most associated with Christianity (maybe even just U.S. fundamentalism), but can anyone say this authoritatively enough to justify the complete absence of any other scenarios? I think that's the issue here. Certainly the current article is robust enough to deserve to be a separate article, but perhaps it should be titled "End times in Christian fundamentalism" and be referenced in a more general overall article. — Jeff Q 20:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Good point. The article also focuses so heavily on the three viewpoints it wants to dicuss that it ignores the fact that all Christians that believe in the bible believe in this concept to some extent simply by Revelations being a book of the bible. Support removal. There is little chance this can be rectified quickly. - Taxman 01:08, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Object to removal from Featured Article status. To remove this article from Featured Article status merely because the Ragnarok and Die Götterdämmerung stories are not included is ridiculous. This page is already too big! What is this? A witch hunt? :)) All you have to do is rename the page to End times (superstition) or End times (christian) which ever would score more points in your witch hunt. :)) No need to try to remove the names of the week from the dictionary just because the names of the week are named for God. She, it, they will not hurt you. You are letting your superstitious fears show in the sweat of your brow as you look furiously for some way to remove from Wikipedia pages what you fear.  :(( This page is in no way POV defective in covering what it covers. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think its my fault this is here. I had absolutely no problems with the neglection of Norse stories after realising that the correct term was eschatology ("End Times" being used to refer to this is now seems to me as Anglic insensitivity). My problem was that it seemed to be quite jumbled and full of bickering on cross-denominational differences. On closer look it seems a bit better than I thought, but I still don't think it is up to Feature Article status.--ZayZayEM 02:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, Rednblu! Where did all that conspiracy theory stuff come from? You responded as if someone suggested that we murder someone. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted. The question is whether it should be a featured article, which is what this page, Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, is about. According to Wikipedia:Featured articles, this rare status is reserved for "Wikipedia articles we think are particularly well-written and complete". It may be very well written, but it's clearly not complete, unless the phrase "end times" is expected to represent only the eschatology covered in the current article. To use (or perhaps abuse) your own analogy about days of the week, one would not expect an article titled Days of the week to include only Sunday and Monday. One might hope to find detailed information on these days (including origins, connections to religion, interesting cultural connections, etc.) under appropriately titled articles, but one would expect Days of the week to include all seven in the calendar currently in greatest use around the globe. (Even these qualifications might reasonably lead to further discussion.) Wikipedia has a place for all information on properly-presented topics, and a thorough discussion of any and all Christian "end times" beliefs is completely appropriate. But it should go under a title that doesn't assume it is the be-all and end-all on the subject, which is no doubt what triggered the POV complaint. That's all I was saying. Taxman is quite right that the issues here are not likely to be fixed quickly. Just renaming it would leave a gap where an overall article should be, and it takes time and to create a solid encompassing article. Therefore, End times should be removed from featured status until these issues are resolved, at which time it may very well be featured again. Don't have a cow, dude. — Jeff Q 05:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for using my analogy quite well. :) This is an article only about weeks, so there is no reason to expect that it would also include explanations about time periods generally. No need to remove from Featured Article status a Featured Article quality article about weeks just because there is a missing article on time periods generally! This is how I read Filiocht's comment below. What you are implying is that there should be a disambiguation page Time period (disambiguation) which should contain links to weeks and months. So in this case there should be an End times (disambiguation) page that would link to this page renamed End times (Christian) and also having links to Ragnarok and Die Götterdämmerung.  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 23:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral - can we define its scope closely enough that it is comprehensive in its limited field? (Incidentally, I added a link to Ragnarok, but someone correctly changed that to eschatology; the article also refers to Christian eschatology, which is more general than the article and more specific than eschatology.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Doesn't need to include things it is clearly not about. Filiocht 11:15, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The term "End Times" is pretty closely connected to these particular opinions and I don't see any need to turn it into an article that is so long that it can't be featured for that reason (which it would be if it tried to cover all of eschatology). As ALoan says, all that is needed is to define the article's scope and link to the parallel articles representing other traditions about the end of the world. Mpolo 13:52, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Now oppose removal. Much improved. Neutral, close to remove. The new explanation header is helpful, but everyone seems to be forgetting that the article has no references and the lead section is way to long and not all that well written. - Taxman 18:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree. Everyone seems to be going crazy about Ragnarok, what the point was with nominating it here was that it is simply not up to scratch for feature Article status. - I am now voting to REMOVE--ZayZayEM 02:42, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This begins an attempt to retrospectively impose new FA standards on old articles. Refs were not required at the time this was featured, and much less stress was placed on lead sections. Filiocht 08:28, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
        • All FA's should meet the same basic standards. If they don't, they should be removed. If not that, then what is the point of this page? This gives the page's author's a chance to improve the article to stay featured; if not it goes. At least one article was improved enough after listing here to stay featured. - Taxman 13:07, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
          • I have added a references/further reading section to the article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Great. Thank you. But can you split the ones that were actually used to write or fact check the article into the proper references section, and put the ones that weren't as further reading? That's more valuable and correct policy also. Also can you have a go at reducing the lead section? I don't think I could do it without badly hacking it up. - Taxman 16:44, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
              • It's getting hard to count the stars. AAR, I divided that section into references, Bible commentaries, and further reading, and added some more recent works to the further reading section. Smerdis of Tlön 20:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • Thanks, good work. - Taxman 13:13, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what's difference between end times and end of the world? I think it's the same. Are they explaining Biblical terms? Rantaro 06:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • AFAIK the phrase "end times" does not appear in those words, not in the KJV Bible anyways. "End times" refers to a belief system that interprets Christian apocalyptic texts to support a claim that the Rapture and the Second Coming are imminent. -- Smerdis of Tlön 12:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Art in Ancient Greece

Article is no longer a featured article.

Here I am going to go against my general feeling that problems should be listed on the article talk page first before here. I don't think any quick fixes will solve this any time soon. No references, entire portions of the subject with nothing but links to other articles, Image with no source information. - Taxman 05:18, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • As the original author of the article, I support its removal since it has been badly hacked about since I wrote it and is now a mess, which is one of the reasons I have largely withdrawn from Wikipedia editing. On your other points however: (1) I took the photos myself and they are tagged accordingly. (2) Since when do encyclopaedia articles need references? An encyclopadia is a reference. Adam 06:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry you feel that way, collaborative editing can obviously bring out great articles. I am certainly not listing it here because I want it removed, but instead because I would like it improved to the level of other featured articles. The first image does not have any source tagging info. As to references they are now a basic requirement of featured articles. It is important that the information in wikipedia is verifiable, so the best sources in the subject should ideally be consulted and cited. - Taxman 14:03, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, until someone adds text to the blank sections summarising the "main articles". -- ALoan (Talk) 12:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove, agree with User:ALoan. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque

Article is still a featured article.

This article is featured on the main page but has had serious issues for quite a while now.

  1. It includes pictures without copyright tags.
  2. There is no section with references.
  3. The structure is messy, it includes very short sections and the ordering is not very insightful.
  4. There is no clear lead section.
  5. The images are overwhelming the article instead of supporting the text.

Hopefully its listing here will stimulate improvements. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal: I feel that in this case it would be an instance of retrofitting current requirements on what is a reasonable article. Obviously I'd like to see the lead shortened and references section added and the image copyright thing sorted and the images made smaller, but no to defeaturing. Filiocht 11:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well thats the point. All featured articles should meet at least a base level of the same standards. If they don't, remove them and then get them back in just like any other article. I still oppose removal while it is on the main page though. - Taxman 18:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • I think Filiocht has a point here - when we add new requirements (like the requirement for referneces), the idea not to retroactively apply them because that would be unfair to older articles. And I think he is correct that this is an example of exactly that. →Raul654 17:50, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal for now: although this is not of the very highest quality and I doubt would get Featured now, I think it is (barely) good enough to stay featured. But the above criticisms are valid. I've tried to make the images a bit less messy and overwhelming, although the structure and content is not not brilliant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I listed a few of the same concerns as above on the talk page in order to give the editors a chance to fix it before listing here. I think that is only fair. But if I had seen it coming up as a front page article I would have opposed that there. Now I think since there is a listing of what is wrong with the article on the talk page, maybe all the viewers to it today will help with fixing its problems. - Taxman 13:12, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I've made an attempt myself to fix at least the structure and create a proper lead. I do think that the text in general is not feature quality material, the flow and readability are below par. It can be fixed, but really needs work. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree, now support removal. It has not improved enough while being on the main page. It does have major stuctural issues, has no references, and seems to lack coverage in important topics. - Taxman 05:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • I still support removal, it has improved to be at least readable now and not a complete mess, but it's definitely not up to our current FA standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 07:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] World Wide Web

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article, featured on the main page today, has several problems. Parts of this article read way too much like an essay, with clear instances of POV and/or original, subjective interpretation ("these bold visions", "beyond text", also see "Publishing web pages" comment on talk). The overall structure is poor; the order and choice of sections seems arbitrary. For example, the "Java and Javascript" section should rather be called "Dynamic content", or something similar, and cover more than these two particular technologies. The section says nothing useful about what dynamic content is and what it is supposed to be good for. The "Sociological implications" section is vague and incomplete at best. Poor writing: many one-sentence paragraphs, missing wikilinks. Sub-standard choice of images. And perhaps the worst problem: this article is blatantly incomprehensive; there is almost nothing on types of websites, search engines, organization of the web and websites, the web's role in commerce, and probably many things I didn't think about. In my opinion, this article could use a rewrite from the ground up. Fredrik | talk 18:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with your points. However, put them on the article talk page — this page will receive enough attention today that perhaps someone will do something about them. Regardless of the article content, I think the idea of taking down an active featured article is unprecedented. Derrick Coetzee 18:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The article must be listed here for two weeks before it can be taken down. Fredrik | talk 20:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Well I mistakingly moved this entry to the WWW talk page. But that article is actually not recently promoted and because processing on this page will last at least two weeks, I see no problem with its inclusion here. The issues Fredrik points out are valid and should be taken care off in some way. So I'm going to add the FARC template to the WWW talk page now. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 20:09, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. While I don't think it is helpful to list articles here while they are on the main page, this article has not improved enough after being there. It still has basically all of the above problems. Please do copy those criticisms to the talk page so editors can work on them. I think it would have been much more helpful had they been there. I think the image choice is perfect though actually. - Taxman 18:33, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - much more could be said, and this does not cut the mustard (I like the lead image too, though). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_removal_candidates_archive_November_and_December_2004_e5ad.html"