Wikipedia:Featured article review/Starship Troopers/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 User:Dana boomer 07:47, 23 August 2013 [1].
Starship Troopers[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
- Notified: Palm dogg, Books, Novels, Science Fiction
Most likely people know of the film by the same name and not being aware of it being a loose adaptation to this book. Anyway, this article was promoted to FA status in 2006 its obvious that its not up to snuff when looking at today's criteria. One notable issue it has it is the lack of sourcing. One example of this is in the "Military history, traditions, and military science" section. Another issue is has is how its written. Feels like something out of Sparknotes. "The raid itself, one of the few instances of actual combat in the novel, is relatively brief" is an example of how the prose is that good. And finally there are problems with its structure as there are one line paragraphs in it (Adaptations).
Something also worth mentioning is when compared to it on the day it became featured, its looks to be better structure wise. Maybe going back to how it looked then and fixing the other issues it has can it be improved massively. GamerPro64 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If all it needs is a revert, just let me know. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverting would not be enough as I don't find the prose to be very good. The Plot feels more like Sparknotes than actually telling a summary. GamerPro64 20:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include references, prose and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Per nominator. GamerPro64 03:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Uncleared tags; unsourced sections. I notice that several of the footnotes are to the primary source: the book itself. The article should reflect coverage in and provide references to secondary sources. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 19 August 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) 11:48, 23 August 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.