Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Simon and Garfunkel

Article is no longer a featured article

I'm an experienced editor who has just opened an account. I hope this does not affect the validity of my argument.

This might have been a good article once, but now it pales in comparison to other music articles:

it has NO notes and references WHAT-SO-EVER.
the lead is choppy and does not provide enough context.
the music samples are disruptive to the article (yes, you still have to consider aesthetics). I suggest moving them to the bottom of the article.
no fair-use rationale of images.
The entire article is choppy; there are many paragraphs with only one or two sentences (this is not enough to state and expand on a point), and the prose does not flow. If this is what Wikipedia's very best work is, then I'm extremely disappointed. Traitor 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- You should bring these points up on the article talk page before listing the article here. Mark ¹ 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as per Traitor. Mikkerpikker 23:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Traitor. Things can be brought up on Talk but this requires a massive overhaul if it is to remain as an FA. Marskell 18:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. FCYTravis 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Even the fourth word in the article, the first after the title, is wrong. We can do better by Paul and Art than this. David | Talk 22:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom, also seems to be using album cover images as illustration instead of to identify the albums in question, has no sound samples, and half of the article is an awkward table-formatted discography. Lots and lots of work needs to be done. Jkelly 19:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Neutrality^talk 23:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per nominator. Tony 08:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]