Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ziad Jarrah/archive2

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 Dana boomer 16:44, 3 August 2010 [1].

Ziad Jarrah

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Ziad Jarrah

Notified:Listed WikiProjects and nom

This article is at the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing. Unsourced portions and citation tags throughout YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article's problems are generally minor and mostly amount to fleshing out specific citations to the 9/11 Commission report where needed. The article has not substantially degraded from the version which passed the last FAR, and only one significant new piece of information seems to have arisen, which has been more or less appropriately integrated. I did not notice any cleanup tags besides the citation requests. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Over the next couple days I will clean up the remaining three citation requests...if there are other points at which you feel the sourcing is inadequate, please add tags. Although I don't know that these is a lot of value to tagging further sentences as being sourced to the 9/11 commission report. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Yellow, the nominator and main contributor, weren't notified when this was posted at FAR Tom B (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, the nominator was notified, see User_talk:Quadell#FAR_for_Ziad_Jarrah, just a few spots above your notification. It looks like you are correct about the main contributor not being notified - thank you for doing this at User talk:Sherurcij. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am still looking at this and currently it is waiting on getting access to the McDermott text listed under further reading. If there are other citation issues people would like addressed besides the two currently tagged, please bring them up. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - although I think this is pretty salvagable from a sourcing perspective, I don't have the time at the moment, so this can probably be delisted. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several paragraphs still left uncited or at least lacking page numbers. --mav (reviews needed) 13:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: criterion three issues are numerous:
- File:Ziad Jarrah.jpg - Appearance on a .gov site does not mean it was authored by the federal government. How can authorship be established?
- File:Jarrah-2000-Flying-Florida.jpg - Needs source per WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A; needs to credit author and copyright holder (NFCC#10A), needs a rationale (NFCC#10C), what is the significant contribution? (NFCC#8)
- File:May212000StudentVisa-Jarrah.jpg - Visa's are not issued by the FBI; license needs to be updated accordingly.
- File:ZiadLetter1.jpg, File:ZiadLetter2.jpg, File:ZiadLetter3.jpg and File:ZiadLetter4.jpg - These are not authored by the US government; such a license tag is utter nonsense. Need verifiable sources.
- File:Ziad Jarrah Passport Photo.jpg - Needs a verifiable source. Эlcobbola _talk 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Эlcobbola, although none of the issues are unfixable in the space of a couple of days Fasach Nua (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing note - This was mainly closed due to the main editor not having time to work on it and asking for it to be delisted. It appears to be not far from FA status, and so can be brought back to FAC as soon as the above issues have been fixed, if the main editor so wishes. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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