Wikipedia:Featured article review/Fred Phelps/archive1

Fred Phelps

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography plange 05:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have degenerated since it was featured (yet to appear on the main page), the lead has blown out, at least 2 methods for citing references are in use, and heaps of short section have been added. Needs to be cleaned up to be inline with the current criteria.--Peta 04:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I agree that it does need a bit of clean-up (like Phelps' height being in the opening, not very important). Maybe rid of/move/condense the smaller sections.

Here's what has been done thus far—precious little. Paragraphing needs attention (there are stubbies), and so does the sectioning. I'd be most uneasy if this appeared on the front page. Makes me sick to read it, and somehow it needs to announce NPOV a little more explicitly at the start. Needs almost an anthropological angle—or something. Tony 15:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move quickly to FARC. I just went in to clean up some refs, and found instead what looks like a pretty serious violation of WP:BLP. Although on first glance it looks like the article is well referenced, there are some very critical remarks with no references at all, and most of the references point to the same source (one book, Addicted to Hate, or websites about that book), or to less than reliable sources. The criticism in the article is not soundly referenced, it looks like a replay of that one book, and could be a big WP:BLP problem waiting to happen. I suggest it needs more attention than FARC, but I don't know that Wiki has set up a place to deal with BLP problems. Sandy 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are format and quality of references (1c), paragraph and section (4), and POV (1d). Marskell 07:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Remove. This article is very poorly-referenced, has many critical statements with no cite, relies heavily on one source, is too long, and appears to be a serious violation of WP:BLP. Sandy 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, relies overmuch on a single source. Andrew Levine 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Too many ^{[citation needed]} flags. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy. Punctured Bicycle 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove tough article to write but too many needed cites, too much from Addicted to Hate, and at the end of the ref list way too many unformatted web refs. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have blanked the article (almost) in response to the serious WP:BLP violations. --Xyzzyplugh 15:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It still has significant amounts of unsourced criticism. This article needs to be delisted ASAP. Sandy 10:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as per previous reviewers. Tony 15:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]