Wikipedia:Featured article review/Karl Dönitz/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 16:25, 10 December 2007.

Karl Dönitz

Review commentary

Notified User:Mkpumphrey, User:Grandia01, User:Neutrality, User:Molobo and relevant Wikiprojects.--Peter Andersen 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has several clean up templates and numerous templates asking for citation. IMO it fails at least 1a and 1c and possibly also 1b, since it is not very long for such an important character. --Peter Andersen 22:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your notification of this discussionPeter Andersen.i really like this article and in my opinion karl donitz is not a war criminal,i personally admire him actually;i've done so much to find appropriate photos for it(scan of his book,nuremberg trials etc)but with all due respect-and in all fairness-how the heck would the admin's on wikipedia nominate a "citation-less" article to be a featured one??in my opinion if the citations aren't there then the only choice we have is to remove its featured status.sorry,but we're talking about the basics of literature and journalism here.hope it improves some time later thoughGrandia01 06:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article just isn't up to snuff. The serious lack of citations is more than reason enough to demote it. Hopefully it can be improved and brought up to FA standards in the future.Cromdog 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has serious problems that will take some time to fix. The lack of citations is only the tip of the iceberg in regards to verifiability concerns that arise because of the lack of citations. Also, as noted above, the prose itself could use improvement up to the professional level expected of a Featured Article today. If this article was taken to A-class review at WP:MILHIST today, I do not see any circumstances where it would pass, let alone a Featured Article Candidacy. On top of that, the article also fails the B-class criteria in the MILHIST tag for articles that are Stub, Start, and B-class. If I were to assess this article today, I would assess it as a Start-class article for MILHIST. -MBK004 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are general cleanup (2), referencing (1c), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per criteria 1a, 1b, 1c. and my comments above in the FAR. -MBK₀₀₄ 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. --Peter Andersen 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Comments made by all the editors above need addressing. DrKiernan (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.