Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sanssouci/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [1].
Sanssouci[edit]
- Notified: Samuel Blanning, relevant WikiProjects, article's talk page
Review commentary[edit]
Seems like another relic of the Brilliant Prose days. Referencing is clearly insufficient - numerous unreferenced paragraphs, so a failure of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c. References are not properly formatted, so that's 2c. I am sure veteran reviewers can add to this list. I started a discussion on article's talk last week, and notified major authors three days ago, but no editor volunteered to help. Time for a FAR, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, if only because almost every paragraph in the article lacks inline citations. Yikes. Ruby 2010/2013 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – I say this with regret, because it is a most interesting and comprehensive article and excellently written, but the shortage of citations cannot be gainsaid. – Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Thanks for the kind words on my writing Tim, but you are right it does want delisting, if only to escape the attentions of ignoramuses who demand a certain quantity of citations per paragraph rather than by what is not commonly known and accepted. "Yikes" indeed. Giano 18:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Per Tim, well written but lacking citations. In the last few years, due to a series of high profile cases, Wikipedia lost the luxury of only citing controversial or obscure claims. The FA criteria reflect that and so this article wouldn't pass FAC today.. Acer (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.