Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Austerlitz/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Austerlitz

Notified: UberCryxic, Austria WT:MILHIST

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was highlighed as not meeting the FA criteria more than 4 months ago[2] and there have not been significant improvements since. b uidhe 02:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vami_IV

The recurring lack of citations in this article is unacceptable. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)——Serial^#[reply]

I'm dealing with the citations: they are the least insurmountable of the problems this article has. ——Serial^# 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, SN did a bit of citation work, no other improvement here, there is still uncited text, inconsistent citations, and some of those listed as citations are unsourced footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Err yeah, sorry about that, I've got a lot of the sources (or others, sometimes, in their place), but I haven't looked at the napoleonic period for ages and had totally forgotten that Paul I of Russia had a mania about round hats, so his police would tear people's round hats off their heads and burn the offending items in the street. Thousands were arrested. And doesn't that just have to be an article...?! ——Serial^# 17:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Sentences 2 and 4 of Paragraph 1 should be combined and reduced. "In what is widely regarded as the greatest victory achieved by Napoleon" should be mixed into Sentence 5.
(Pausing here to come back to the lead after reviewing WP:MILHIST material for their standards and reviewing the rest of the article).

Comment

The lead image is very high quality and high encyclopedic value. It could be a featured picture. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: can you take a look and comment here on whether this should be delisted or kept? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The ^{[citation needed]} tags, inconsistent ref formatting, and unsourced notes are enough not to meet the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There's too much uncited text in the article, at least six paragraphs. Refs are not presented in a consistent way - citations and used works should be separated, for instance. There's 1 ref without a title, only the authors (Lê Vinh Quốc, Nguyễn Thị Thư, Lê Phụng Hoàng??). There's 2 mondediplo citations without authors. I also spotted the use of a primary source (Tolstoy's War and Peace) to cite the importance of the battle for Tolstoy's characters in War and Peace. The article does not currently meet FA standards. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:43, 13 August 2020 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.