Wikipedia:Featured article review/Russian–Circassian War/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 User:Marskell 15:07, 19 November 2008 [1].
Review commentary
- Notified: Hurmata, Grey Fox-9589, SGGH, WP Caucasia and WP Russia
Numerous unreferenced statements are in this article. A larger range of additional sources are needed throughout as it is currently very poorly referenced. "Citation needed" tags remain present consistently throughout this article.
It is also currently being neutrally disputed, and I myself found that the language of it is rather inappropriate for FA criteria. There is also a bad use of layout. The lead is too short, and some images squash up a lot of the text. Domiy (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly didn't pass FAC with that number of problems with image layout; there are some other minor MoS issues as well, if the citation tags and other major issues can be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support to remove this from the featured article list. The title of the war is disputed, and there's a large amount of books and academic works written about it so the article could be expanded and backed up by many more sources. Innitially the article looked pretty good because it had a lot of nice images, but that of course should not be enough to have it as a featured article. I would like to work on this article myself too once I have some books ready, and will work towards making it featured again if it loses it now. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the WP:FAR instructions: declarations to delist or not are not made during the review phase. The purpose of review is to hopefully identify and address deficiencies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I support to remove this from the featured article list. The title of the war is disputed, and there's a large amount of books and academic works written about it so the article could be expanded and backed up by many more sources. Innitially the article looked pretty good because it had a lot of nice images, but that of course should not be enough to have it as a featured article. I would like to work on this article myself too once I have some books ready, and will work towards making it featured again if it loses it now. Grey Fox (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, as only my second major article, I was inexperienced in the writing and souce gathering processes and thus the possible issues of neutrality were not as obvious to me at the time of writing. The title issue was a problem at the time if I recall, and I think it was discussed that the article topic was one conflict in a history of hostilities covered by another article. I am unable to get a hold of many new sources, unfortunately, so any new help I give to improve this article will have to be more in the wp:mos area. Committed to improving it, though, when my regular connection returns. SGGH speak! 12:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And now having had a good read, I certainly didn't write some of this stuff, the article appears to have had some significant changes since I last saw it, so it may take me a bit longer to work out what is going on. SGGH speak! 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 1c not fixed. Domiy (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Agree with Domiy (talk · contribs). Not much has been done to address above concerns since the FAR started. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image concerns Image:Russian-Circassian-War.jpg, Image:Ermoloff.jpg, and Image:Circassian Warrior.jpg do not detail original sources (by which I mean the nineteenth century artist not the web source). These are preferred so that the age of the image can be checked (I can delete the local copy if appropriate information is provided on the wikicommons versions). Image:Nicholas1.jpg has no artist information; this should be replaced with an image with more complete information. Obviously, the citation needed markers need clearing. Minor point: the external jump right at the end of the text looks a bit odd. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove 1c problems have not been successfully addressed. OpenSeven (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.