Wikipedia:Featured article review/Crash test dummy/archive2
- 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 09:48, 16 April 2008.
Crash test dummy[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Notified WikiProject Automobiles and Denni
This article currently fails criteria 1c (factual accuracy), 2a (concise lead that summarizes the topic) and 3 (images). The lead is very short and does not encompass details covered in much of the article. Also, the article has only a few inline citations. It is imperative that the numerous statistics in the article be sourced to reliable sources. Some of the current sources used in inline citations do not meet our RS policy. The image licensing also seem a bit sketchy. The summaries on Image:Sam4.jpg and Image:Sierrasam.jpg say that the images were uploaded with the permission of the author of the sources. There is no evidence of some official OTRS contact to confirm this. Furthermore, one of the images is licensed under GFDL, while the other is under {{PD-USGov}}. Image:Hybridlll.jpg and Image:Focus1.jpg are licensed under {{PD-USGov-DOT}}, but they do not explicitly state where the pictures were obtained. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 08:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Remove- The article is horribly under-referenced for an FA. Back when it was granted FA status in 2004, our standards were far lower than they are today - so this is perhaps not unexpected. There is no doubt that this article would stand no chance of passing FAC today. However, loss of FA status is a painful thing to recover from. It would be better if the editors could bring the standard of the article up to the point where this review would become moot than to force them to go through the entire painful FAC process again. I'd like to see the editors of the article given plenty of time to remediate the article before removing it's coveted gold star. Minor details about the lead paragraph and image sourcing are much less of a concern to me and I certainly wouldn't de-FA it for those reasons alone. But a 35 paragraph article with only seven inline citations is clearly not good enough. It ought to be possible to source many more of the facts in the article from the eleven other sources in the "References" section. SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Please note that we only start commenting on removal when this becomes a "Featured article removal candidate". For now, we just talk about its flaws and such. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies - there is no way to know that from the information provided! SteveBaker (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that we only start commenting on removal when this becomes a "Featured article removal candidate". For now, we just talk about its flaws and such. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are accuracy (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per 1c. Sparsely sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.