Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trench warfare/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 12:52, 3 August 2007.

Trench warfare

Review commentary

MilHist, Meelar, Gsl, Trekphiler, and Philip Baird Shearer notified

The lead is far too short does not summarize the article well, and in-line citations are sparse. I have a hunch that it does not do too well on the "comprehensive coverage" criteria either.--Konstable 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you specified your concerns a bit more, especially concerning the coverage.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't comment on the coverage as I'm no expert on trenches, as I said it is "a hunch", more of an invitation for those more familiar with the subject to comment. I got that impression after finding the section I came to the article to read, Māori Pā, being positioned in a strange place in the article (neither logically tied in with anything, nor chronological) as well as being on the short side. The lead is very short - WP:LEAD recommends three to four paragraphs summarizing the main points, while the current one is barely one paragraph and does not sufficiently summarize the article. This is in violation of the 2a criteria. The 2c criteria is also violated in lack of in-line citations. You have some references at the bottom but with no mention to which parts of the text each one refers, quotes and statistics are used without citation.--Konstable 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Konstable, pls follow instruction number 6 at WP:FAR, notify all relevant parties and the original nominator, and leave a record here. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure will. However the top of the WP:FAR page is way too long for anyone to read, especially when it seems to change every week.--Konstable 13:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is LEAD (2a), citations (1c), and comprehensiveness (1b).Marskell 10:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 21:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, 1c and 2. Some prose and WP:MOS improvement, but the article is still largely uncited, and has MOS problems. Twice I went in to make WP:DASH, WP:MOSNUM and WP:UNITS corrections and got Wikimedia Foundation errors, lost my work. The article is confused on units; sometimes it leads with metric, other times with imperial. It needs a consistent style, and then the {{convert}} template can be used to convert the units and handle the non-breaking hardspaces per WP:UNITS. More importantly, the article needs to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 29 July 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.