Wikipedia:Featured article review/Typewriter/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 19:18, 10 October 2007.

Typewriter[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notifications, project: WikiProject Technology
Notifications, user: User:Atlant‎ (major contributor). Almost all major contributors are unlikely to respond as their last edit took place 2 months or more ago.

This article wasn't reviewed for a long time. I have found some problems such as lead section doesn't contain references. History section is significantly under-sourced, as well as many other sections. There's a trivia section and I want to question about the "See also" section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lead section is not supposed to have sources. See WP:LEAD.--66.142.45.164 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it says "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead." So I think reference is required. Btw, I think all FA have refernece(s) in lead. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because a lead is a summary of the entire article, the general consensus is that inline citations are not required in the lead, provided that they are given later in the article. An no, not all FA have citations in the lead. 69.202.63.165 19:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are LEAD (2a), referencing (1c), and trivia (4). Marskell 10:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. In addition, the prose is not up to standard.
    • Why is "keys" in quotes?
    • The lead is pretty bad in terms of WP's specific requirements. Four stubby paras, too.
    • First caption in History is inadequate: why doesn't it tell us what type/model of typewriter it is? Info not provided on the infopage, either. Other captions similarly inadequate.
    • "In fact"—Get rid of this.
    • MOS breach: use logical punctuation at the end of quotations.
    • "many printing or typing machines were patented"—"and"?
    • "well known"—hyphen required in US and UK English.
    • "1845" is, strangely, linked.
    • Stubby paras.

I got three paras into the first section. Tony (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove, whole lot of uncited trivia, not even a Good article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 6 October 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/Typewriter/archive1&oldid=1138478005"