Wikipedia:Featured article review/Éire/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 09:39, 13 April 2007.

[edit] Éire

[edit] Review commentary

Talk messages left at Ireland and Countries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• 1a, prose is not brilliant, in my opinion the most obvious example of this is over usage of parentheses.
• 1c, very light on inline citations, and has dubious statements, some of which have already been questioned on the talk page.
• 1d, although possible not an issue, POV has been brought up on the talk page
• 2a, lead section is too long, especially considering this article is smaller than most featured articles
• 2b/c, 5 headings and no subheadings, heading names include the title of the article, also section sizes vary widely
• 3, only 3 images, one of which violates fair use

On a side note, this article was featured an indeterminate but long time ago and has no FAC page. Vicarious 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I add the following:

• 1a: footnotes: the Browne/MacBride and Lenihan footnotes are chatty (and utterly irrelevant).
• 1b: there is no mention of:
  • the fact that many foreigners mistakenly think that Éire is the official name of the country in all languages, and that many Irish people hate to see/hear "Éire" used as such in English, French, etc, and may even view such usage as egregious ignorance or a calculated snub. There was an amount of contentious and uncited assertion along these lines (see Talk page), now reduced to the inadequate "Since 1949, the term Republic of Ireland has generally been used in preference to Éire, when speaking English."
  • other etymological theories besides the etiological "Ériu"
• 3: the map of Ireland serves no purpose in this article other than decoration.
• 4: aaaaaggghhhh! I get the impression the article was written with much youthful enthusiasm in the early days of Wikipedia and crammed with various goodies to get it up to what passed for Featured Article status then, and has since been left to twist in the wind while other articles covering similar ground have caught up and overtaken it. It seems originally to have served as "History of the Irish state from 1937 to 1949". A grossly misleading infobox to that effect survived until 3 weeks ago. Most of what is still there belongs on another article. Éire should be about the Irish word Éire, its etymology, official and unofficial usage and meanings; even if it covered that far more comprehensively than now, I doubt there would be enough substance for FA status. The entire Éire#From Éire to the Republic of Ireland section should be removed from Éire and merged with Republic of Ireland Act and/or Irish head of state from 1936 to 1949. There is also overlap with Names of the Irish state, British Isles (terminology)#Ireland_2 and Constitution of Ireland#Historical origins. A co-ordinated reworking of all these would certainly help; at the end of that daunting task, I think Éire will be left with very little content.

I think there is no hope of this article regaining FA status any time soon. jnestorius^(talk) 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Its unfortunate but a majority of the article should be merged into the Republic of Ireland Act. The text is blatantly partisan (see treatment of both Costello &, oh dear..."the controversial" Noel Browne). Prose is weak in places: "in front of an affronted Costello". Ceoil 20:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress is unlikely, propose a move to FARC and a merge with Republic of Ireland Act, which when neutralised will be a very strong article. Ceoil 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I take it you mean merge the relevant section(s)? We still need a separate article about the word Éire. jnestorius^(talk) 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I mean those sections only. Ceoil 14:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), TOC and sections (2b&c), and images (3). Marskell 10:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Remove as insufficient content, coverage, and citations, as well as prose issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 2a, 4 (too much detail on 1930s and 1940s), 1a and 1c. -- Avenue 10:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per all of the above, plus sub-professional formatting in its trivial linking. It's a pity, since there are attractive aspects of this article. Tony 23:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.