Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moorgate/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 07:57, 5 May 2007.

---

Moorgate

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Juntung, User talk:Morwen, UK notice board, England, London, Architecture and UK geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this, it has been a featured article for about a year and a half. However, i am not sure that the article meets all the current criteria, particularly the verifibility of many of the sections. Even though there are refere, it does not cite these in the text and so the information doesn't seem to be verified. Look at 1) c). Simply south 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comments—the article needs a copy-edit by at least two to three editors (solo copy-editing is bad; always work in groups). Issues from the lead:
  • "Moorgate was one of the minor gates of the old London Wall." What is the "old London Wall"? Clarification might be good, especially because this is the opening sentence.
  • "Though the gate itself was demolished in 1761, the name survives as a major street in the heart of the City of London." This sentence could stand for rewording; "though" should be "although", and it might not be necessary to emphasise via "itself".
  • "which was one of the last pieces of open land in the city." Not all our readers may understand what "open land" means.
  • "Today this region is a financial centre, and is home to several of the United Kingdom's major investment and commercial banks." Comma after "today", and perhaps a semicolon instead of ", and" because the second part is supporting the first part.
  • "The street also showcases historic and contemporary office buildings, including the Guildhall and the Moorhouse." Why not replace "historic and contemporary" with "several historic", or even just "historic"? It can be reasonably assumed that there will be some contemporary buildings anyway.
  • "This resulted in systems being installed on the Underground which automatically stop trains at dead-ends, which have become known as Moorgate control." two cases of "which"

There are mostly subjective ideas, but the lead does need a lot of work. Based on this, it is reasonable to assume the entire article could use a massage. Additionally, there are no inline citations, which is more or less a default remove once it reaches FARC. — Deckiller 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove—1a and 1c. Not a single edit made. — Deckiller 00:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1a and 1c. Also has an external link farm. LuciferMorgan 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1a and 1c. Not even close to a GA, much less an FA. -- Kicking222 19:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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.