Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat/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:Marskell 14:53, 9 October 2008 [1].

Felix the Cat

Review commentary

Notified WP Films, WP Animation, WP Cats, WP Comedy, Pietro Shakarian and Amcaja. Original nominator Lucky 6.9 talk page protected, retired.

A 2004 promotion, this article is largely uncited, needs MoS and WP:ACCESSIBILITY cleanup, and includes external jumps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal!!!! Good lord, this is a FA opposite! How the hell did this manage to even make it into the candidate list of acceptable nominations? The majority of the article can be called speculation or original research, very badly referenced so few times. Additionally:

Strong POV issues. I have seen the word 'famous' in there a few times already, one is too much unless it is an extreme case of acceptance (which this is not).

Image:Wooswhoopee02.jpg is about to be deleted.

Far too many nonexistent pages are linked! The page is polluted with red links everywhere. I personally don't like doing or seeing this at all, but it can be a blind issue sometimes. As I said, far too many red links. Quite simple really - if the page doesn't exist, don't wikilink it!

Some layout and format issues are visible. Lead may also be a bit too long. This page is in need of a desperate cleanup! Nowhere near FA status! Domiy (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declarations of keep or remove are not made in the review phase; read the FAR instructions. Additionally, lower standards were held for featured articles in 2004, understandably, since the FA process was very new at the time. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted a number of instances of NPOV, a least two dozen redlinks and an image about to be removed, along with a dodgey referencing style that in totality means a redo is in order. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and POV (1d). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Agree with above comments by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Domiy (talk · contribs), a lot of this stuff has not been addressed, particularly the referencing issues and cleanup issues. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Uncited material. External jumps. Minor MoS issues. Images with dubious licences/no sources, e.g. Image:April-maze-copley.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 07:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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