Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Damascus steel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Damascus steel
- Article is no longer a featured article.
A hold over from the Brilliant Prose days. Good in its day, but times have changed. →Raul654 01:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. But what criteria are you saying it no longer meets? The only one I see it entirely violates is in lacking a picture. - Taxman 14:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Remove. It's really quite good, and would take little effort to polish back up to FA standard. But it's not quite there at the moment. Ambi 08:16, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. What are the actionable objections? Paul August ☎ 18:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- UH, it's very short - I doubt that its comprehensive (but I'm no metallurgist so I cannot say what's missing). It lacks a picture of any sort; for cituations they basically renamed the 'external links' section. →Raul654 19:34, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Remove - needs proper references (ie. inline references - not just a list of sources at the end). --Neoconned 22:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Our policy is that you can use either inline sources or a reference at the end - both are acceptable. →Raul654 22:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if that really is the policy, it needs fixing. It's unreasonable to expect readers to verify information in articles when it's not made explicit which part of the article comes from which source. Putting a list of sources right at the end with no effort to correlate those sources with the article's contents is both lazy and fragile. Wikipedia needs a robust referencing policy that will boost its credibility (and that's a matter of urgency). For an example of a proper referencing policy in action, please see SourceWatch. My vote is unchanged - 'Remove'. --Neoconned 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The featured article criteria say it has to abide by policy, and not your personal interpretation of what it should be. →Raul654 03:47, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Listing references at the end is both standard and very reasonable. The only time references are needed inline is when a controversial or seemingly surprising fact is stated that needs to be backed-up with a specific citation. --mav 04:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)~
- I think inline references are welcome, when appropriate, but wikipedia is not a scientific paper (and i'm glad for that!), so they shouldnt be mandatory. muriel@pt 17:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if that really is the policy, it needs fixing. It's unreasonable to expect readers to verify information in articles when it's not made explicit which part of the article comes from which source. Putting a list of sources right at the end with no effort to correlate those sources with the article's contents is both lazy and fragile. Wikipedia needs a robust referencing policy that will boost its credibility (and that's a matter of urgency). For an example of a proper referencing policy in action, please see SourceWatch. My vote is unchanged - 'Remove'. --Neoconned 03:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Our policy is that you can use either inline sources or a reference at the end - both are acceptable. →Raul654 22:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I thought we were not retro-actively applying FA-criteria? Anyway, the title should be Damascene steel. dab (ᛏ) 18:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The way it has been applied is that lack of references alone is typically not enough to defeature an article, but lack of references can be used in conjunection with other shortfallings. →Raul654 19:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Remove. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Remove. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 01:25, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Remove Peb1991 22:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It is short, but looks pretty comprehensive to me. "Damascus steel remains something of a mystery", so I doubt whether a metallurgist would be able to help much anyway. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The only criteria it totally fails to meet is a picture. Inline references would be great, but few articles do that now. - Taxman 15:16, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Those who contend that it fails "comprehensiveness" should say what is missing. Raul, are you saying there is a problem with the References? Paul August ☎ 17:55, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
