Wikipedia:Featured article review/Volkswagen Type 2/archive1

Article is no longer a featured article.

Introduction is too brief and vague, it doesn't mention the specific models/variants at all.
Many stubby paragraphs that only introduce a topic without discussing it.
The "Variants" section is only a list and doesn't talk about each of these different types in detail.
An almost complete lack of references (the two that are there are done improperly).
Excess bolding of words.
The article ends "open-endedly" at the end of the history section, leaving the reader to say "so what makes these cars special?" --SCHZMO ✍ 03:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main FA criteria concerns are LEAD (3a), comprehensiveness (2b), and citations (2c). Marskell 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—Not much activity since listing for review [[1]]. It passes 2a, IMV, but can someone fix things such as:
- Grammar: "just like the Beetle has".
  - Sentence has been rearranged, improving grammar but not changing the basic content. -71.131.223.24 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A snake to chop up: "Kombi, however, is not only the name of the passenger variant, but is also the Australasian and Brazilian term for the whole Type 2 family in much the same way that they are all called VW-Bus in Germany, even the pickup truck variations." Tony 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Holy shit—what a sentence ;). Marskell 16:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - the lack of references and insufficient lead is enough to warrant removal. Pagra shtak 01:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove lack of refs Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Is not even up to par for a good article. misses the FA mark by a mile. Karrmann 23:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I must say I have been wondering what is this doing among FAs for a long time now, but I didn't want the one to blow the whistle. But now that even Karrmann says so, I feel free to say it loud :D Bravada, talk - 00:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]