Wikipedia:Featured article review/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)/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 19:11, 3 September 2007.

Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Guettarda and WP Caribbean notified.

I nominate this article for a featured article review, because:

Its very very short
It has a complete lack of inline citations
It has only 1 image
It lists only four references, and doesn't incorporate the references into the article with inline citations
Excessive red linking
Most sections are only a paragraph long
Not very professionally written, i.e. The party was the party

All in all not what i would consider wikipedia's best work --Hadseys 22:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a notice to User:Guettarda. Joelito (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please provide a diff to the version it was when it got Featured? I am sure it had to have refs when it passed, if not I am sure the references at the bottom of the page cover most of the points in the article so I will leave the user that worked on it a chance to put them in place before opposing or supporting. -凶 09:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)#[reply]

Promoted version: [1]

It was written based primarily on Meighoo's book, with some additional material from the two Malick references and the Sudama article. At the time it was promoted, I don't think inline citations were even possible, and they were not a requirement of FAs. Guettarda 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the objections raised by Hadseys

Length - the FA criteria require an article to be comprehensive, not "greater than a certain length".
- Well its a very very concise overview
Lack of inline citations - it was written overwhelmingly from a single source; the other sources support the source, but don't provide new material. Would it really be helpful to reference statements when most of them come from the same source?
- I'd say that it relying on a single source is unacceptable because it may be a source with bias, a good featured article should use multiple sources
Only one image - I would love to be able to get my hands on an image of the party symbol. If anyone can track one down, I'd be thrilled. I'm not sure how adding additional copyright images is going to substantially improve the article.
- That would make an interesting addition
"It lists only four references" - because it was written based on one reference; the other references provided additional support.
- I think basing it on only 1 reference is really bad
"Excessive red linking" - I can turn the red links into stubs; does that really improve the article?
- Why not just remove the linking
"Most sections are only a paragraph long" - really? Can you point me to these one-paragraph-long sections? As far as I can tell, zero sections are one paragraph long (although as it currently stands, the lead should be one paragraph).
- OK perhaps i misinterpreted the formatting but without doubt some of the sections are stubby
"Not very professionally written, i.e. The party was the party " - I agree; Xerex, who made some later additions, isn't the world's best writer. The prose needs improvement.

Guettarda 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, if the refereces at the bottom of the page are placed where they can be used as 'inline citations' and some minor improvement to prose are made I will support keeping this article as a FA. I attemped to find a logo of the party by myself but was unsuccesful so I won't take lack of images under consideration. -凶 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is uncited and the lead could use work. The article size is fine. I'm not sure about the tagging on the image. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources used are cited. I agree that the lead needs works. I can fix that, but not before early-mid August. While I'm not sure how it would improve the article, I could add inline citations, but again, for a number of reasons, I doubt I would have time to touch this before mid-August. Guettarda 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can leave it here for ten days then, which will take it into the middle of the month. Marskell 08:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this has been up for almost a month, with little change. The lead could be expanded. I added seven sample cite tags on bio issues, hard data, and opinion that needs attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), stub sections and prose (1a). Marskell 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll drop a note to Guettarda to update the review. Marskell 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He hasn't edited since her last post here, this review should be posponed until he comes back since the issues here are mostly concerning reference ubication and lead wich for some reason didn't appear to be important back on 2005, he clearly met the standards back then wich are even lower than a GA now. - Caribbean~H.Q. 09:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Guettarda has been actively editing for over a week, but there has been no progress towards resolving the issues raised at review, and in fact, no editing of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: Obviously, nothing's happening with this one. Marskell 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.