Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Iraqi insurgency

Iraqi insurgency[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

Copied from its talk page: This article is such an abominable mess that I'm summarily removing its featured article status. The writing is some of the worst I've seen on a Wikipedia article, it's in a state of flux, and it's full of unreferenced statements and opinion represented as fact. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC). Rather than summarily removing it let's discuss its merits and then decide. It was also nominated here three months ago: old nomination. Worldtraveller 12:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original FAC is here. JDR 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Contains multiple images without any license and those that claim fair use have no rationale, and some aren't needed to illustrate the article. Like the blurry one of a person loading a missile. - 131.211.51.34 12:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was my comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) there is no process for summary removal, so well done for bringing it here, and 2) and I now change my vote to remove. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. While the article does have a lot of interesting info and decent references, it lacks the overall cohesiveness of a well-put-together article and instead reads as a list of items related to the Iraq insurgency. There are also a number of inaccuracies, such as this statement in the lead: "Much of the insurgents' violence is directed at the police and defence forces of the Iraqi government." In the last few months, the insurgency has focused on causing civilian casualties. I also don't see any info on the fighting that has occured between the different insurgent groups.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Starts quite well, then the rot sets in. Appallingly written towards the end. Lacks cohesiveness. Someone had better repair it quick smart. Tony 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove-Normally I'd suggest just reverting to the revision for which it was made featured, but this is an topic that demands a continually updated and improved article. Those updates and improvements simply haven't been made. However, remember we're not voting to delete; I can see this possibly earning featured again in the future. Superm401 | Talk 16:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the various positons on it's becoming a FAC. The article covers the necessary view that "the resistance" as it isn't a singular entity, unlike most journalists on the topic. It has "heaps of info" (aka., list of items related to the Iraq insurgency) and "Covers pretty much everything" .... and, as to being in a "state of flux", something that goes along with being a "current event" . Sincerely, JDR 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. This article is an embarrassment and has been for some time. There is some good stuff in here no doubt, and the article does try to deal with the complexity of the situation, but it has been the victim of so many edit wars and POV-related edits that it will take a while to separate the signal from the noise here. It also probably will not be improved any time soon until people both pro- and anti-war stop trying to use this article as their political soapbox. Obviously there are important political issues here, but the language should be encyclopedic, not politically charged, and debates over the political meaning of terms (such as "insurgency" and "resistance") should not be elided or wished away.--csloat 17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Many thanks to Worldtraveller for doing what I did not. I removed the article summarily because I assessed that there would be overwhelming support for this action in the interests of Wikipedia (WP:IAR) but this turned out to be wrong so when the article was restored I did not pursue the matter further. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove regarding JDR's comment, the fact that something being in a state of flux goes along with being a current event is why we don't normally nom current events to be FAs. Re:stability criteria. Borisblue 21:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I support Tony's rather rash decision to remove it even it may appear somewhat high-handed. He is absolutely right that this is a no-brainer since it's about a current event that might take years to stabilize, something which should've been recognized in the original FAC. Demanding a proper vote when it's blatantly obvious that it doesn't live up to the FA criteria strikes me as overly bureaucratic. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remove From reading the FAC archive, the article was a good one at the time. But lately it seems to have been taken over by a group of pro-Bush POV pushers, whose standards of writing are not the highest. JMaxwell 03:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]