Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Sicilian Baroque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to former FARC :Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Sicilian Baroque/archive1

I am nominating this for removal as it no longer meets the increasing and often ambiguous criteria for an FA. I have been one if it's major contributors and I am tired of waiting for someone else to nominate it here. So I am nomination all the FAs which I have worked on before they can be nominated by the likes of User: Tony1 or User: Miss Madeline. I do not feel I own these pages, but I do feel responsible for them. FA review is not the place for them, because I do not wish to add anything more to them to bring them to the current requirements.

I note this comment here [1] If this is what is required then I don't choose to comply. I cannot manufacture further references, for articles I wrote over a year ago, when I have already listed those used. I have not the time or inclination to return to the library re-read tens of textbook in order to provide a wondrous foot-note system which was not a requirement when the page was originally featured. I cannot beleive anyone else would want to take on such a task either. So for the FA status of this page there is no hope.

Regarding criteria 2a like most here I am not a professional writer, and even if I were - I would not be inclined to write in the style considered "well written - means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant" in the style of Tony 1 and those who have set themselves up in judgement on this matter. So I want rid of the FA status for all nine pages I am nominating today, the 10th is already here. I want to be free of them and concentrate on writing non FAs in a style I consider correct and interesting. I imagine we are seeing the beginning of a witch-hunt of all FAs written over a year ago. I wonder if wikipedia will be better, or worse for it? Giano | talk 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)