Wikipedia:Featured article review/Data Encryption Standard/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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [1].

Data Encryption Standard

Review commentary

• Featured article candidates/Data Encryption Standard

• Featured article review/Data Encryption Standard/archive1

Notified: User talk:Matt Crypto main editor and nominator, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations. Tom B (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problems including a mixture of inline and footnote citations. Either is fine. Pick one and be consistent in its use. Text inline like this: "and improved by Biham and Biryukov (1997)." shouldn't exist if footnote referencing is being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Board300.jpg: source is a dead link. Confused licensing: says both copyright and GFDL.
• File:Copacobana.jpg: missing permission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another reason why we need a "speedy delist" for former FA-class articles now in this lousy of shape. Once again, I think this is proof that FA is flawed: articles get promoted to a certain standard, and never get touched again after their promotion, even if the standards are increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See here; perhaps if you had written an FA yourself, you might feel differently about the amount of work that someone once put into this article. Patience, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is still in terrible shape. I retract my statement on speedy-delists, but I still think it's absurd that articles can still be called "FA" if they are this bad. Fifelfoo's concerns about sources are, as always, spot-on. As tagged, there is one whole section that lacks sources entirely, and overall there seem to be several other unsourced areas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no one is working on the issues identified, and there are tags and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per citation problems and relative lack of improvement as stated by SandyGeorgia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.