Wikipedia:Featured article review/Commonwealth of Nations/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Commonwealth of Nations

Article is no longer a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics and Template talk:WPMILHIST Announcements. Sandy 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was promoted to FA status back in February 2005. But it suffers from lack of footnotes for an important article. In addition to some POV sentences like this eulogy in the lead: The Commonwealth is not a political union, and does not allow the United Kingdom (UK) to exercise any power over the affairs of the organisation's other members.' CG 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

One reference from 1960. That is completely inadequate for this subject. Punctured Bicycle 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Cedar, is that sentence POV? Doesn't appear to be, although you might take issue with it in other respects. Tony 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yess, I admit, it's not that serious POV issue. I meant that this kind of subject must have a lot of criticisms which the lead does not mention. Therefore the lead does not summarise the article. Instead it seems that it defends the organisation. Anyway I might see it in my own prespective :-) CG 07:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sources are an issue, the lead is also too long and unfocussed.--Peta 05:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a single reference added since it was nominated: move to FARC. Sandy 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (1c) and POV (1d). Marskell 18:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Someone's had a poke around, but the issues have not been addressed. Tony 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove.Insufficient inline citations.--Yannismarou 18:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. The diff seems to indicate 3 inline cites have been added during FAR. Inadequate citing, and weasle words, for example: The Commonwealth has often been likened to an English gentlemen's club, and the issue of who is and who is not a member often seems to be more important, and certainly attracts much more attention, than what the organisation actually does. This is because the main benefit of membership is the opportunity for close and relatively frequent interaction, on an informal and equal basis, between members who share many ties of language, culture, and history. Sandy 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a clanger; unfortunately, it's not the only one .... Tony 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)