Wikipedia:Featured article review/World War I/archive5

Brilliant prose promotion, no original editor. Messages left at Germany, MilHist, United States. Sandy (Talk) 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for FAR because;

It fails criterion 1. c. of "What is a featured article?" Lacks sufficient citations. LuciferMorgan 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the nominator. As a matter of fact I was also thinking to submit it here!--Yannismarou 22:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsurprised others thought of nomination, as there's been so much literature on World War I that this article's amount of cites is rather poor. LuciferMorgan 23:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree with the nominator - the citations are incredibly weak, and the article could also use some polishing (the quality of the writing has, I think, slipped a little since it reached FA). I don't think it would be problematic to delist it while work is ongoing - it can always work its way back up. Carom 16:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If work is being made on an article, admins generally extend the allocated time to address the criteria concerns. LuciferMorgan 17:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right, of course - slipped my mind for some reason. Carom 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 109 kilobytes of info and thirteen measly citations? This article is the encyclopedic definition of unsourced, and if any one is curious, it has been nominated for removal at least three separate times. It's high time we put our credibility where our guidelines are and axe this article’s FA status. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concur with nominator and above also, for reasons above and my nomination (the 2nd one). It seems that after my nomination, the article was improved (ex. article size went down to 65kb), but now it appears to be growing worse again. AZ _t 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lots of paras without inline citations, the current footnotes include one named just 'web reference', and there are style issue (lots of tiny paras that should be merged or expanded).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient inline cites (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, and fast; an article like this one should be loaded with inline citations, and it's not what I call "brilliant prose".--Aldux 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove for some of the reasons listed here and for the weak inline citations. The prose isn't that great either. Looking at the lead (guidelines suggest 4 paragraphs, btw), the first sentence is missing a comma, and the second paragraph (which is only 1 sentence) is somewhat unparallel. AZ _t 00:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per my previous comment. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—Where are the references? Tony 12:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. No references. I'm surprised nobody is working on this article.--Yannismarou 19:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - lack of citations. Buckshot06 00:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]