Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wikipedia/archive1

Wikipedia[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Review commentary[edit]

The article is unbalanced, the "Criticism and Controversy" section is the largest single section of the article and is topped off with a "Weasel words" tag. I know there are counterarguments to the critics in that section like mentioning the article in Nature magazine, but I still feel the article is unbalanced. I'm not too sure how much of it is criticism either, the subsection "Authors" barely deals with any criticism.

Smaller points include the tiny "funding" section, it's so minimal and mentions nothing of how the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia is funded, I'm not sure why it's there.

There are a handful of "citation needed" tags in the article, surely for a featured article, this should not be the case. An example of one of these reads:

Some of Wikipedia's editors have explained its editing process as a "socially Darwinian evolutionary process", but this description is not accepted by most Wikipedians.

This is an encyclopedia article about Wikipedia, what would a reader care about how some Wikipedian's perceive Wikipedia? Some Wikipedians are probably perceive it to be a Time Cube.

In general, this article does not represent the best of Wikipedia and is not of featured article standard. - Hahnch e n 03:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections: "Scientific analyses of Wikipedia" and "In popular culture" are very short, they should be either expanded or removed. CG 11:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten days have passed, edit history shows numerous reverts, talk page shows no ongoing effort to improve the article, and there are numerous citation tags. Sandy 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Main FA criteria concerns are neutrality (2d) and comprehesiveness (2b). Marskell 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unlikely to be fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Jaranda. Rebecca 05:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above - lack of references and more.... RN 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. And I don't like the navel-gazing, self-referential aspect. Tony 06:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]