Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Iraqi insurgency/old

Iraqi insurgency

Article is still a featured article.

Nominated in September'04 for 'brilliant prose' and 'relevance to current events'. Brilliant prose is not enough, besides, I don't think it is brilliant anymore (text has way to many subsections and some short paras and lists, on talk 'to do list' sais 'General cleanup of text'), nor relevant ('to do list' sais 'Update article with newer info'), besides, many articles has been voted out at FAC for being current. Further, lead is too short (one para only), references are mixed with external links in one section and there are 24 external links in main article. This would never pass a FAC today, and I am amazed it even made it last year.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the above points, the article is also pretty unstable. --nixie 13:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not perfect, but good enough to retain, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:14, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Everyking 13:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove I agree with all points stated above say1988 01:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove. --mav 11:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rethink all the subheadings, but otherwise this is a first-rate source for info on the insurgency. Harro5 21:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but with the qualifier (and this is gonna sound strange considering I have just voted "Keep" to it being in the FAC list) that it does not become a Featured Article Nominee. It is too changeable, controversial and maybe even long to be a Featured Article. It is, howeverm excellent. As stated before, an arch example of Wikipedia, through the collaboration of many, achieving roughly a consensus on a rapidly-changing but very important modern event. --Batmanand 21:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove Some keep votes likely result from lack of knowledge of the current WP:FAC standard level. The references do not include retrieval dates and the lead is innapropriate. This alone would lead this article to be recused. Phils 09:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It could do with a bit of updating and buffing, but the content on the whole is admirably comprehensive and fair. Mark¹ 07:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 17:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. When we change the FAC requirements (references, for example), it behooves us to bring the existing articles up to the new standard rather than demoting them. (Unsigned vote by User:TheoClarke.)
• Keep. The article is well written and deserving of feature article status. Referencing is a minor concern, but there are references and with a bit of dedication they could be brought into line with current referencing schemes. Complaints about the lead section are unfounded - there is nothing wrong with a short lead and some articles lend to themselves to short leads. Cedars 00:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written and comprehensive. And personally I prefer short leads, but maybe that's just my short attention span :) Kaldari 16:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• {{sofixit}}. It's not perfect, but is probably the best summary of the issues that is online. We've outlined the problems, so someone that would like to make this really great has what they need. To remain featured, this one is good enough for me. Keep. - Taxman ^Talk 04:16, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Remove- besides the fact that the lead section is too short, the article as a whole seems unstable. Some parts read more like a commentary or newspaper article rather than an encyclopedia. Flcelloguy 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)