Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Major/archive1

Add links
From 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 09:39, 13 April 2007.

John Major[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Brilliant prose promotion. Messages left at Bio, UK notice board, Politics, and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of loads on unsourced statements and has only a few references! NO Feature article should have a statement like "By the 1997 general election Major had come to be seen as an unfashionable, ineffectual and grey figure unable to control an increasingly divided and sleaze-ridden party." Not only should this phrase be reworded but the article status should be changed. Its a B class at least. It definately needs to go through a review process and needs improving. Other examples include unsources quotes e.g. "when the curtain falls, it is time to get off the stage". Similar examples include:

Major's recent low-profile political career was disrupted by the revelation in September 2002 that, prior to his promotion to the Cabinet, Major had had a four-year extramarital affair with a fellow MP, Edwina Currie. Commentators were quick to refer to Major's previous "Back to Basics" platform to throw charges of hypocrisy. Max Hastings in his book Editor in 2002 also commented on Sarah Hogg, a colleague at The Daily Telegraph, "Sarah knew Major intimately, in a way none of the rest of us did".

There is a lot of stuff here, just in the one above paragraph that would support its review. I would argue that the article does not meet FA criteria any more. This is because it is

  • 1.) Not Well written, the prose is not good, the article is fragmented.
  • 2.) The article is not "Factually accurate" - there are loads of unsourced statements, only two references to any of his comprehensive biographies or those about his government and there are no page numbers!). LordHarris 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, the lead does not summarize the body of text and there is a trivia section. Jay32183 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were two seperate honours section! Have merged the two, needs a few references though. Also removed the see also category (as only had a link to Majors cabinets) and moved that to the PM section of the article. Have tidied up some of the last sections, moved the wiki link to the end and put them together. Ive also removed the ridiculous speculation (unsources) that John Major was the PM in Harry Potter! Ive also edited the introduction to introduce Major and his PMship better, as well as summarise in reference to the above comment.LordHarris 17:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a bit of a tidy to media representation section, as well as a few references and a quote box. Ive picked up a biography of Major from the library, will try to add some references over the coming days. Some help in the review on references would be most appreciated. LordHarris 18:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added about 10 more references from news sites to his 'since leaving office' section. There were two '1997 defeat' sections and have merged those into one, making it flow until the after office section. Ive added some citation needed facts as well.LordHarris 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to improve, but its still several grades away from being an FA. We need more users to try and tidy up the article + provide references. Definately think this needs to go to FARC at this rate. LordHarris 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Full dates are not wikilinked when they should be, and solo years are linked when they shouldn't be. The footnotes are a wreck of blue linked URL's; they need to include title, publisher, last access date, and author, publication date when available, presented in a standard biblio format. (cite templates can be used if editors don't know how to format refs; see WP:CITE/ES). It's surprising that very few book sources are used. There are punctuation errors and numerous cite tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is a featured article. Poorly referenced with many uncited sentences and sections. You can't trust it as it seems it's written from one person's point of view. Citations would solve this - or more of them.There could be more images or relevance, references are not cited in the correct format. Nowhere near a FA, but I will try and help. Whataboutbob 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy and citations (1c), POV statements (1d), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:23, 27 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/John_Major/archive1&oldid=1078811334"