Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Severe acute respiratory syndrome

Severe acute respiratory syndrome[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

From FAR:

The article has been moved to Severe acute respiratory syndrome. It badly needs a fact-check and proper footnote and reference sections. The tables and boxes need to be formatted to fit the screen properly (doesn't work on my screen settings). Finally, it just needs a good clean-up (especially the "Clinical information" and "Political and economic reaction" sections.) --maclean25 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality^talk 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added footnotes to the article; they should however be cited correctly according to WP:CITE. AndyZ 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just cold linking the resources, it would be a dramatic improvement if you described what is being referenced and gave the title of the page instead of the link (or worse, a number). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 18:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Páll! Like all things wiki, this is a discussion, and not a vote. As such, in part to be fair to our fellow users, and also because of the high standards relating to Featured Articles, we generally appreciate more than just a strict vote. Would you care to ad anything to your comment? Are there specific criteria the article fails? Do you aggree with the nominator? Do you have suggestions for improvement? Thanks! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I'll go with 'remove' here because there are many 1.5 line paragraphs and sections, and messy inline citations (though I note that AndyZ converted most of the ext. links in the body into footnotes) that do not inspire confidence in the factual accuracy of the article. This article was promoted as "brilliant prose" in Jan 2004 but has not been updated since (except for the addition of NY Times article and a Chinese study on bats). These concerns can be resolved by a thorough fact-check and copyedit. Are these good enough reasons for de-featuring? --maclean25 23:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
remove per maclean Zzzzz 21:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
remove given that we have the benefit of hindsight, I am saddened that no-one seems to have taken the trouble to achieve an overview. Too much of this reads like contemporary news coverage rather than a properly documented, scientific and political assessment of the response to the disease at a local, national, and international level. Given the apparent threat of H5N1 and the need to learn from past experience, retaining this as an FA seems inappropriate. Further, the standard of English is at times quite painful and I do not believe that we should hold this out as an example of Wiki's best. David91 16:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]