Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bratislava/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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:19, 11 October 2010 [1].

---

Bratislava

Review commentary

Bratislava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Bratislava
• Featured article candidates/Bratislava/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Bratislava/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Bratislava Working Group/archive1

• Featured article review/Bratislava/archive1

Notified: Marek69, WikiProject Slovakia, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Hungary

I am nominating this featured article for review because I rather naïvely pointed to it during a recent FAC as an example of a compact FA on an older city. Several other people, including some regular FA reviewers, looked more closely and noted serious concerns [2] [3] with the article, including doubts that the originally promoted version would meet current FA standards. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I have not notified MarkBA, the original FA nominator, because he was indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster a long time ago (which, I suppose, might have a lot to do with the article's decline). Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Demote per my comments linked in DC's original FAR nom statement. upstateNYer 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR phase is for article improvement, declarations are entered if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Woops, didn't know that. Will keep my eye out for that stage. upstateNYer 01:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment regarding the issues:

• This image File:Coat of Arms of Bratislava.svg has no source information. Needs a source per WP:IUP.
• Also, there are nine dead links:

• [4] - this link appears to be broken.
• [5] - this link appears have a connection time out.
• [6] - dead link, connection time out.
• [7] - broken link.
• [8] - dead link on cite ref 109.
• [9] - dead link on cite ref 127.
• [10] - also a dead link.
• [11] - dead link on cite ref 151.
• [12] - dead link, connection time out. JJ98 (Talk) 20:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are structure, lead, undue weight (per linked diff comments), sourcing, images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delist. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist, per above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• Delist per my comments above and initially. upstateNYer 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.