Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Party (Utah)/archive1

Liberal Party (Utah)

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Talk messages left at User talk:JonMoore, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Sandy 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article really doesn't meet current featured standards.

no inline citations and really not much in the way of references at all
doesn't meet criterion 2a
doesn't feel comprehensive - I get the feeling that there's quite a bit more that could be said about the topic
obsolete copyright tags on images
could do with being generally reorganised, as the two-section format looks a bit odd (for one, the history section seems to start halfway through the story)

Time to remove? Rebecca 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the problems Rebecca has touched upon do indeed need to be addressed for the article to reach current FA standards. LuciferMorgan 21:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For one: I think it is unfair to change the standards midstream, especially on an article that hasn't changed much since it was FA. Second, this article is probably one of the most comprehensive on the subject in existence, anywhere. Information on this subject is VERY hard to come by as proven by the original author's need to use a Master's thesis as a source. Anything else would amount to original research. I can go fix the picture tags if you like, sonce they are all old enough that there is no copyright. —JonMoore 17:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The standards have changed greatly over time, and that is the primary reason why this page exists: to remove those FAs which are no longer up to current standards. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some more that could be included in at least the three listed references (and that's assuming that there are no others); at the very least pinpoint citations and some tightening of the prose need to happen. Rebecca 09:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a very obscure subject. That's the main reason the article has barely changed since it was made FA. There are some small references to the Liberal Party in passing, mostly in books about the history of Salt Lake or Utah, but at most it's given a paragraph or two. I can probably find the two books mentioned for citations, but the master's thesis is at the library of the University of Utah, and since I'm not a student there, I probably can't access it. The original author of the article no longer contributed to Wikipedia, and inline citation didn't even exist when the article was made featured. This article is simply the most thorough treatment of this subject I've ever seen. I could try to tighten the prose, but I think I reads very well right now. The only complaint I really agree with here is the no inline citations. I will try my best to fix this, but it might be difficult. —Jo nMo ore 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Three edits since it was nominated (one was Tony), lacking in citations, no progress, move to FARC. Sandy 10:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any more on this subject could be said without original research, but if it pleases you I could dig up inline cites. Also, I'd appreciate it if someone changed the damn image tags instead of idly complain about them since it's blatantly obvious they're very old (or in one case, US government survey, as it says). Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 08:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), copyright problems (3), and writing quality (1a). Marskell 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Lacks inline citations (1c). Also, it's length is too short to meet the criteria for FA (1b). LuciferMorgan 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can something be too short, if that's all there is to say on the subject? Should someone go out and dig up some original research and break that rule? This article, as stated above is probably one of the most comprehensive on the subject. Please produce a source that we have overlooked so we can make it more comprehensive. —JonMoore 01:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of things that are not explained. Just because further research is difficult to do (for one, no one has even gone back to the original thesis source) does not make the existing article comprehensive when it is not. Rebecca 10:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Short article, inadequately developped and consisting just of two big sections; this is not the recommended structure of a FA. Very few references. No inline citations.--Yannismarou 18:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think you people are being very unreasonable. This is a good article, very comprehensive for the subject. How do you know it's not comprehensive? Are you experts on Utah history? How do you know there are more sources on the subject? Can you produce them? I'd be very happy for you to. I'd love to add more info to the article, if it exists. Not every subject is going to be the same length. Conciseness is sometimes better. —Jo nMo ore 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no one has even gone back to the original source to see if more could be added; without so much as that, there is no way this article can be deemed comprehensive. Secondly, we realise that there are times when information may be unable to be found, but the article needs to actually be able to spell out what is unknown - see Makuria for a good example of how to deal with topics with sparse source information. It's not concise at the moment - it's vague. Rebecca 13:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First read FA criteria and then say if we are unreasonable or not. Inline citations are one of the most important FA criteria for about 18 months now. Where are they in the article? The article may be good, but this does not mean that it deserves FA status. You ask us to find sources. But this is not our obligation! This is the obligation of the editors of the article! If they cannot produce the sources FA status demands, I'm sorry! So, don' ask us things we are not obliged to do. And do not confuse FA status with GA status.--Yannismarou 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove for the reasons cited above. CG 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove lacks inline citations. Sandy 00:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. Tony 05:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]