Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Ferdinand Magellan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Ferdinand Magellan

Article is no longer a featured article.

No notes or specific sources, only one "reference" and several "further reading." --Neutrality^talk 22:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Eeek! It doesn't cite even when it quotes from diaries! Procedurally, it's a clear de-listing. Geogre 03:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, unfortunately, this is really a speedy delist per absence of references. Marskell 09:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove forthwith per Neutrality. Mikker ^... 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per nom. PDXblazers 06:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove for having so few references. Staxringold 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I added several footnotes- if that's not enough I'll try to find more. I think there is some weak prose and there is a list that should be converted to prose, however. AndyZ 22:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - per initial complaint. Article is poorly written, poorly formatted, and not ultimately informative. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a reason for your vote? AndyZ 22:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Several citations (footnotes) have been added to the article. AndyZ 22:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The book and the new notes in the references cover almost every reference needing content, I haven't found any dubious parts. Afonso Silva 18:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, considering new references. Deltabeignet 19:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AndyZ --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep new references save this from the chopping block. PDXblazers 01:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep per AndyZ --Donar Reiskoffer 10:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Several of the sources that have been added are far from reputable. This source, for example, is a low-quality essay written by (most probably) a high school student. Similarly, this link points to another unreputable essay site. (Aditionally, the essay cited was written by someone with an average essay rating of 2 out of 5 stars, see this). Lastly, although better, this source is also not reputable and this source seems to be biased (see here). All in all, four of the nine sources do not conform to WP:RS and several of the other sources are not exactly the kind of thing we want to encourage people to cite. There are numerous biographies of Magellan, why aren't these being used? Furthermore, though I realise this was not mentioned in either the nomination or in my vote, the Magellan article suffers from a number of other serious problems. Most importantly, it seems far from comprehensive (especially "Early life", "Voyage" and "Return"). Additionally, the writing is far from brilliant. Some examples:

1. "In 1511, Magellan was sent to Morocco, where he fought in the Battle of Azamor and received a severe knee wound"
2. "Ruy Faleiro, an astronomer and Portuguese exile, aided him in his planning, and he found an invaluable financial ally in Christopher de Haro, a member of a great Antwerp firm who held a grudge against the king of Portugal"
3. "The men among Magellan's expedition were also the first Europeans to observe several new animals that didn't live in Europe"

In other words, even with the recent refs being added, the Magellan article does not meet the WIAFA requirements. Mikker ^... 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Lack of comprehensiveness, poor last ditch sources. Remove pere MP. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)