Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive/August to October 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newer nominations are at the top.

Contents

[edit] Shroud of Turin

Article is still a featured article.

Moved discussion on recently promoted article to Talk:Shroud of Turin.

[edit] Rock, Paper, Scissors

Article is still a featured article.

Since its acceptance as a Featured Article, the organization in the article section on "Variations" has deteriorated greatly. --zandperl 23:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Fix, then. Don't remove. jguk 09:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal unless no-one wants to fix it. If recent changes make it worse, can't it just be reverted to its state when it was promoted. Alternatively, if the recent changes are valuable, can't they just be incorporated more elegantly? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I started fixing it up, but I'm not sure if anyone else is interested. I would feel uncomfortable if an article that I thought wasn't Featured material was then fixed by only myself and kept as a Featured article. We'll see if it evolves any more, but I expect it will be slow. See its talk page for more discussion. --zandperl 17:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I dunno, this article looks pretty unorganized. It doesn't seem like a simple task to "fix" it. I say remove. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:05, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nella Larsen

Article is no longer a featured article.

No sources. 20:49, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • OK, having read again, reluctantly, remove for the reasons set out above and below. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)Neutral - not the best, but not awful either. Peer review, perhaps? (although I suppose that a featured article that needs peer review ought not to be featured...) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. It's certainly a decent article, but it's clearly below current standards. It'd be nice to see - and I don't think it'd be too hard for someone to do so - this improved to that standard. Until then, though, remove. Ambi 11:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. No lead section, no references. Some one sentence paragraphs. This is one of those excuse articles, "well if ... is featured and doesn't have ... why does this article have to?" - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal for reasons given by others. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that spoiler warnings in this context are daft. If someone is reading up about a writer, they probably want to know what that writer wrote about, and how they did it. Filiocht 13:58, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Netherlands

Article is still a featured article.

No lead section or sources. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

  • Remove. No headline image either - not up to standard. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep now, good work. Remove. No image, no lead section, no references. - Taxman 13:12, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just noted this article listed here, I will work on it next week to get it up to featured standard. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Please re-evaluate the article. I have added an introductory section, referenced and a related image. I hope this adequately addresses aforementioned issues. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:08, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good work. Just fix up all the one sentence paragraphs and I'll certainly support keeping it now. One thought though, did you check any of the added sources to make sure they concur with the info in the article? I worry about that when the sources are added after the fact. - Taxman 13:37, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for changing your vote, and good point on the one-sentence paragraphs. I've now merged paragraphs where appropriate to improve readability. The references agree on the content but are often more detailed than our article, this merely shows the article could be expanded, the Dutch have a rich history. I would like to add that the main source of this article is the Dutch article on the history of the Netherlands, but I am not sure if internal sources need to listed in the references section. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:41, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it could hurt. But maybe others disagree. - Taxman 15:35, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree so I've added the Dutch article as the top reference, I'm in doubt whether the other references should be listed as external links instead though. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • I suppose, in an ideal world, you would refer to the references for the Dutch version - are any listed? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Nope but it has an external link, to a fairly extensive site which I think was used as main reference for the original article. I think the original author likely had extensive knowledge of the topic himself. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:38, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well I think the article has improved a lot, I have now added the Night Watch as top image as it's very well known and symbolic for the Dutch golden age. I have moved the previous image of Michiel de Ruyter down, it is appropriate in a subsection. New are images, and proper captions, of Anne Frank, Napoleon and Indeonesia, all important and illustrative elements of Dutch history. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 16:59, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese toilet

Article is still a featured article. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:41, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:Featured_articles may say that featured articles are "reviewed for style, prose[sic] and completeness" (the [sic] reference has now been fixed) it is hard (perhaps impossible) to believe considering what I have read in the first paragraph of this article. Prose is completely lacking as well as style and although I did not get past the first paragraph, I think it speaks for the rest of the article (as it should).

I will not review each error, but instead will display how the sentence should be. The current state of the art is bidet toilets, which, as of 2004, are installed in more than fifty percent of Japanese households. (Note the removal of POV and the redundancy of ?advanced high-tech?)

In Japan, these bidets are commonly called Washlets (ウォシュレット), a brand name of Tokyo-based Toto Ltd., and include many advanced features, rarely seen outside of Japan.

The rest of the paragraph does not belong here as it applies only to the last type of toilet (with a sentence about squat toilets), and should therefore be place under that heading.

I have made the following changes to the article, but otherwise the remainder of the article is unchanged (i.e. still horrible). Additionally, the remainder of the article, as a whole, is in poor character, and unfortunately, I have come too late to prevent its current status.

Moogle 01:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph is representative of the entire article and is shown on the main page - therefore, if it is poor, it needs to be revised to be considered one of "of our best articles" (I actually did read beyond the first paragraph, but wrote the above for effect).
The creator of course.
As far as meeting "all of the major featured article criteria" - while it may have been "comprehensive [and] factually accurate" as mentioned above, the question of whether it was, "Well-written: compelling, even "brilliant" prose?the former name for featured articles" is easily answered: No.
If pulling actual sentences out of the text and improving them was not enough for you, what do you need, exactly?
Besides being described as "a great article", what exactly is great about it?
Finally, what does an article's promotion date have to do with the quality of the article? Moogle 07:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That you didn't like the first paragraph is not sufficient grounds to nominate the entire article for featured article removal. How do you know that the rest of the article is horrible if you didn't past the first paragraph? Simoes 03:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Filiocht 09:33, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC) Note only featured since Oct 18. Filiocht 09:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:50, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. If you have issues with the text, bring it up on the talk page. This article meets all of the major featured article criteria. - Taxman 14:51, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - what is wrong with it, exactly? It was promoted less than a month ago, on 18 October. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The proposal to remove is weird. It's a great article. Tempshill 18:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Road transport

Article is no longer a featured article.

Little structure, no obvious lead section and no references. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Horseshoe

Article is no longer a featured article.

Short, little structure and no references. Images have no source information either. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Again, agree with all the reasons above. Remove - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:53, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal prime

Article is no longer a featured article.

See that article's Talk page for the kind of objections that I see. I don't see the content as at all either well-written, nor a true topic that is fit for inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems so contrived to fit a specific POV. - 65.119.52.66 22:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal, though for different reasons. (I think it's a perfectly good topic for inclusion in this encyclopedia, and while the idea of an illegal prime is propaganda for a certain viewpoint — it's to make DMCA look ridiculous — the article isn't grossly POV). My objection is simply that the article isn't of dazzling quality, and it seems that more could be written (the referenced external links go into greater detail and explanation). — Matt 08:47, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Object to removal. It's not clear how one can write in a dazzling fashion about this topic. That such a prime could even exist is an illustration (and something that deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia, of coding theory). That the motivation for discovering it was political is perhaps also a topic for an encyclopedia, at least for one that purports to cover current topics. The halflife for this particular political difficulty is probably considerable, so by the time it's 'cooled' enough for inclusion in a traditional encyclopedia, the entire matter will be moot. Readers deserve more from WP -- this is neither current news nor traditional encylopedia fare. But then, WP is not a traditional encyclopedia. ww 20:09, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused; you say, "it's not clear how one can write in a dazzling fashion about this topic". Featured articles should be dazzling, that's their purpose; if an article isn't great quality it surely shouldn't be held up as an example of the best of Wikipedia? — Matt 20:25, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • Matt, Having been dodging WP downtime, I've only just been able to get to this. Sorry about that. On the question of dazzling writing on this topic, I was trying to point out that prose which adequately describes a substantially circumscribed technical topic is unlikely to be capable of the artistry which is normally meant when speaking of great writing or dazzling prose. Metaphor, simile, allusion, etc (tools of the writer's craft) are often -- rightly -- thought to be confusing and so inappropriate in technical writing, thus making dazzling prose about technical subjects unlikely as the writer has been disarmed, if eschewing these tools. In the present instance, prime is a rather unmetaphorizable topic, and the legal tangle created by Congress with the DMCA, though hugely metaphorizable, would be so mostly only in a NPOV fashion. So, in this case, featured status must rely on other criteria. Clarity (which this article has), relevance to important concerns (which this article has), completeness (which in a limited sense on a limited topic, this article has), interest (as a result of the relevance to odd effects of important public policy enactments), etc... No article I can envision would be able to do much better, I think, so within the limits of the possible for this article, it does just fine. Does this sufficiently clarify my comment? ww 15:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Insufficient explanation, deatial, and length. Acegikmo1 17:58, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal - David Gerard 00:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. It does not discuss why this is essentially a very trivial discovery, and it has an overtly political slant (which I agree with) that does not belong on Wiki Greglocock 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker

Article is no longer a featured article.

While this is a large wikipedia topic, and deserves a featured article, this article is not up to standards. It is a mix of overview article and topic list. The main article has a quite short text body, and doesn't mention many of the larger subtopics (poker variants should have a section. Poker in culture/film/fiction should have one too). In short; this article needs a lot of update and expanstion to be a featured article. ✏ Sverdrup 20:21, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:54, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - nothing like good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • This one doesn't seem as bad to me. If you think it needs a few things, then go fix them. Are these things you think should be added so problematic that they can't be fixed without unfeaturing this? - Taxman 03:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • A featured article should not require that level of fixing, and don't think that I would be sufficiently knowledgeable to "go fix them" myself. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Ambi 11:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

Article is no longer a featured article

A holdover from the Brilliant Prose days of yore and main-page'd 20 months ago, this article is woefully inadequate when compared with current FAs. First and most glaringly, while there are copious external links and further reading, there are no references, which is an important distinction. There are many statements made that call out for references / footnotes. If needed, I shall illuminate them all. First FARC from 12 months ago. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep for now. The article is pretty good and the only major problems seems to be the lack of references. Why not wait a while on the removal and see if anyone is willing to put in references?--Alabamaboy 13:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. Jeffrey, I didn't have the nerve to FARC this one, but I'm glad it has been done.

FA Criterion 2(b): "comprehensive", [meaning] that an article covers the topic in its entirety and does not neglect any major facts or details.'

Some five weeks ago, I complained about a major deficiency. Here's the exchange, pasted from the discussion page:

______________

Title: information on style is seriously wanting

For a FA, this article is deficient in that it provides absolutely no information on his style. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Guidelines_for_musical_style. Tony 04:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right. There wasn't a word in the article about style, influence, and so forth. I took a swing at it; it's a bit rough for now. Feel free to edit mercilessly, rearrange, whatever; it could be a huge amount of material, but I tried to keep it relatively short for the start. It might need subsections by type of composition, or perhaps should be mainly chronological. Antandrus (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

______________

My point was that the title of the article is not 'Biography of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart', but 'Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart'. Thus, in my view, to satisfy Criterion 2(b), the article should contain authoritative information on Mozart's style, preferably in the lead—in brief, broad, non-technical terms—and in the body of the text, ranging from non-technical stylistic information to that which might be useful for a serious, informed music lover.

Since I complained, this aspect has received some attention. However, it is still seriously deficient. Some statements in the oddly titled 'Works, musical style, and innovations' section don't mean much, or are jumbled, or are poorly written. For example, in the opening sentence, we have:

'his works spanned the chronological period from the early, Italianate galant style of his teenage years to the mature classical style of his later life, which began to re-incorporate some of the contrapuntal complexities of the late Baroque.'
  • The function of 'chronological' is unclear.
  • Does 'mature' refer to the classical style as a whole, or Mozart's own version of it? Beethoven brought the classical style to its maturity.
  • 'Re-incorporate'—what, for a second time? And Mozart's counterpoint is typically not as complex as that of the late Baroque. It's only one facet of some of his later works, anyway, and only in particular passages; this statement implies a general shift towards contrapuntal complexity.
In Mozarts's hands sonata form transformed from the binary models of the baroque into the fully mature form of his later works, with a multiple-theme exposition, extended, chromatic and contrapuntal development, recapitulation of all themes in the tonic key, and coda.

Haydn did this before Mozart.

The points about psychological effect in the operas are on the right track, but need to be reworded to be tight and cogent. Nowhere are we told about his transformation of orchestral scoring, exploring a large range of combinations of wind and brass. The use of orchestral colour before Mozart was monochromatic by comparison, including Haydn's.

In 1782–83, Mozart became closely acquainted with the work of JS Bach,

This may be a little exaggerated; he knew Book 1 of the WTC, but not much else of Bach's.

There's no mention of a really obvious stylistic aspect: his use of Austrian folk music.

  • Criterion 2(a): The prose should be 'compelling, even brilliant'

The prose not good enough for a FA. Here's an example of excessive writing, from which the italicised text should be removed:

At some unknown time during his early Vienna years, Mozart became personally acquainted with Joseph Haydn, and the two composers became friends. On occasions when Haydn was in Vienna, they sometimes played [together] in an impromptu string quartet together. Mozart's six quartets dedicated to Haydn date from 1782–85, and are often judged to be his response to Haydn's Opus 33 set from 1781. Haydn himself was soon in awe of Mozart, and on the occasion [when] he first heard the last three of Mozart's series[,] he told Leopold,.."

and

Mozart's musical ability started to become apparent [became apparent] ...

There are odd turns of phrase, such as:

Mozart had a special relationship with Prague [the lamp-posts?] and the people of Prague.

and

a frankly contrapuntal main theme'.

There are grammatical mistakes:

While none of these genres were [was] new

Here's a breach of the Manual of Style (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting):

In September of 1777

There are unexplained and probably not very important facts in prominent positions:

his name changed many times over the years.

Criterion 4: 'It should have images [read 'sound excerpts'] where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.'

Just looking at the info page for the first sound excerpt, who is the copyright owner who is claimed to have released the item for use here? Who is the performer and recordist? When was the recording made? If it's commercially released, can we have the details of the CD and the Company, please?

I think it's a pity that the sound excerpts are lumped together in one location towards the bottom, without reference to the text. The genius of Wikipedia in this respect is its ability to knit together text and sound in a way that can cogently and lavishly illustrate the topic for both non-musicians and musicians.

Tony 13:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove. The needed updates and references have not appeared in the 12 months since the last FARC attempt. There is no indication waiting another 12 months will produce a different result.--Allen3 talk 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, per Tony and nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, per Tony and nom. The recent changes in the Style section have helped, I think, but the article is still definitely not of Featured quality. Opus33 14:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sad Remove its so close to being current FA quality... but Tony is right in that it still needs work.  ALKIVAR™ 01:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I accept Tony and nom's reasoning; it's a good article, but remove as FA. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still produces good criteria as a featured article. 210.0.198.76 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove while playing his "Lacrymosa" in the background. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 06:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ackermann function

Article is still a featured article.

Unintelligible; probably incomprehensible to a general interest reader. Significance of the function is not well explained. The lead section is minimal. The far superior vacuous truth was removed from FA status recently. Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes to this article to (hopefully) help improve it. Admittedly, it's hard for someone not studying computational theory to understand why we should care if a function is primitive recursive or not, but I hope I've at least emphasized how really freaking enormous this function gets, and shortened/clarified some of the long meandering discussion. Feedback is appreciated. Derrick Coetzee 21:48, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Does the function have any utilitarian purpose other than serving as a test of computing power? It might also be improved by a bit more "show your work" to explain how the values of the function get so large so quickly. Smerdis of Tlön 16:32, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The function was never really intended for any practical use — it predates computers by quite a bit, in fact. It's theoretically important as a recursive function which isn't simple recursive, and it pops up in some algorithm runtimes, and that's really about it. Derrick Coetzee 17:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I might have found it easier to follow if the primitive recursive function article ware also in plain English. While I have a vague idea what recursion is --- life is a recursive process that has a break point determined randomly and always returns a value of 0 --- I'm not sure what recursion is primitive, what isn't, and why non-primitive recursion is important. Smerdis of Tlön 18:05, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The concept of a primitive recursive function is rather complex; the main idea is that almost all practical functions we use are primitive recursive, and in fact it's hard to come up with a function that isn't. Maybe I'll add this to that article. Derrick Coetzee 18:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could do with more polishing, but good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Donegal fiddle tradition

Article is no longer a featured article.

Very short, no references, no toc, no images. Filiocht 07:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Support removal. Ambi 07:46, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- Emsworth 20:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. This needs much more informations. Revth 02:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove - how did this ever get featured?? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 22:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. This wouldn't get FA status if nominated now. In fact, people would complain as to why it was nominated. jguk 21:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption in Rome

Article is no longer a featured article.

It's not a bad article as such, but it's very short, and there's absolutely no way it would pass muster today. Ambi 13:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Neutral. What is a featured article does not mention "length" as a requirement for a featured article. On the other hand, it can't be comprehensive, and has no references. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 20:38, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Domestic AC power plugs & sockets

Article is still a featured article.

Was good; is now... not. Has been moved about, now to a rather... odd name, restructured, and generally messed about with. James F. (talk) 15:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Still looks good to me -- Chris 73 Talk 15:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. the name change was the result of americans who can't seem to grasp the term mains such is life but the old name still redirects so its no real biggie

as for the rearangement mess that was the result of the page growing way beyond 32K i've tried to made a start on cleanup but i would to know exactly what you think is wrong Plugwash 17:58, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - could do with more polishing, but still good enough. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - no reason to remove Kiand 19:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trigonometric function

Article is still a featured article.

This has some obvious problems. Quotes:

  • "So much to the premise, but what about the angles, what are they all about?"
  • "(TODO: Show picture here!)"
  • "Whereas this would be principally possible its much nicer to have a indepentent variable, lets call it phi, which does not change the sign during the change from one quadrant into another and is easier to handle (that means not to be neceassarily always a decimal number). !!Notice that all..."
  • "So how can i apply my knowledge now to a circle of any scale"

— Matt 01:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep - this section seems to have been moved to Trigonometry in simple terms. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aryan invasion theory

Article is still a featured article.

No picture. --Merovingian✍Talk 18:17, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why does every featured article have to have a picture? A lack of a picture is not good enough reason, IMO, to remove an article's featured article status. I am new to this, so I might be missing something, but then again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a picture book. Could you say what sort of picture would be appropriate for this article? --Conwiktion 15:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Oops, my bad... apparently, a picture is, for some reason, neccesary. Again, sorry, I'm new. If that little thing is all that is lacking, I'll keep an eye out for an appropriate picture or two to make into a montage that is appropriate for the article. I'm not promising anything though...) --Conwiktion 15:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to say this with all the authority I have as the featured article director, and as the one who wrote the FAC directions - by itself, lack of a picuture *IS NOT* suffecient cause for removal. Per se, it simply doesn't meet the prima facie criteria for removal. On the other hand, lack of a supporting picture *is* a valid reason for objection on the FAC (particularly when its addition would greatly enahance an article, such as when describing topics in science or engineering that are inherently abstract). →Raul654 16:30, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pufferfish

Article is no longer a featured article.

A large part of the featured article Pufferfish was recently moved to fugu (as for Terafugu, the poisonous fish eaten in Japan). When Pufferfish turned into a featured article, it was mainly about fugu, and only later expanded into all fish of the family Tetraodontidae. Now most of the interesting parts of the former article are at fugu. Therefore, I would like to move the nomination to Fugu by nominating Fugu and remove the nomination from Pufferfish. See also Fugu on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. (Disclaimer: I contributed significantly to fugu/pufferfish) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:16, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agree with removal. --mav 00:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: though lots of interesting bits were removed to Fugu, what exactly is it about this article that makes it a non-featured article? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:56, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(Note: Fugu failed to get nominated, I will try again in a few months -- Chris 73 Talk 03:41, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Vacuous truth

Article is no longer a featured article.

Poorly worded at best. anthony (see warning) 15:17, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree - There is also no lead section, references, or history about usage. --mav 21:39, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Milgram experiment

Article is still a featured article.

Pretty short, and no picture. --Merovingian✍Talk 13:36, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

It has a picture now. --Conti|✉ 17:17, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
Seems long - perhaps slightly overly verbose and lacking overall readability, but this is pretty vague criticism. Anything concrete? --ABQCat 04:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article looks fine to me. →Raul654 04:55, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
PS - it's schedule to go on the main page in a few days. →Raul654 04:56, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's a fantastic example of a featured article. -- ke4roh 01:34, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I say keep it. Very informative. Cogently explained. Is there actually a complaint about it? --Chan-Ho Suh 10:06, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Fine to me. It's even on the front page today. -- user:zanimum

[edit] Tuberculosis

Listing removed because the guidelines of detailing the article's deficiencies and leaving time for them to be fixed were not followed. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am resubmitting this for consideration. There are no inline sitations, most of the text are bulleted lists, and there is little Wiki-linking. The quality of the writing is poor, and does not generally serve as an example of a FA. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Gate Park

Article is no longer a featured article.
  • Insufficient information and poor-quality photo. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I've removed it as nobody has expressed an objection. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 22:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Market Garden

Article is no longer a featured article.

It lacks a picture and the 'battle box', I dont see any 'sources' section as well. Hopefully this can be easily fixed, but in its present form it is not up to our current standards, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agree but on technical grounds only; no battlebox and no references. --mav 00:46, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] war elephant

Article is still a featured article.

Jumping on the "no elephants in FA" bandwagon, this recent main-page feature is remarkably low on detail for such a colorful subject, needs copyediting and subsectioning, and needs deeper linking to species and military articles. I have suggested it for Peer Review, and think it should be removed from FA in the meanwhile. +sj+ 20:23, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While not one of our best FAs, it still looks good enough to me. --mav 17:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Mav's assessment. →Raul654 18:45, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
Keep feature status -- Chris 73 Talk 09:27, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] crushing by elephant

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article became featured on March 14, 2004 then Jrincayc edited the article on July 23 with this note: "Removing about half of the article, due to lack of source information. See talk." Now that it's about half of what it used to be, I doubt it should remain FA. -- ke4roh 11:57, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Shame, but if the content stays out, I guess I'll have to support removal. Ambi 00:40, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Damn - that was such a good article too. But I must agree with de-listing as well. --mav 06:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What's left is still a decent article, but not quite worthy of featured status. --Michael Snow 18:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_removal_candidates_archive_August_to_October_2004_71ef.html"