Wikipedia:Featured article review/2004 Democratic National Convention

2004 Democratic National Convention edit

Article is no longer a featured article.

There isn't a single reference or citation in this entire "article". It's more of a "talking points" fax. Also, there are many one paragraph sections. Quite an embarrassment to have this as a featured "article". Feeds into some people's belief Wikipedia is a "leftist" website. --Jayzel68 12:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom. Lack of refs + inline citations a big problem. Additionally, the entire structure needs to be redone (confusing in current state), the article needs a copyedit and it violates WP:NPOV in a number of places. Mikker ^... 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove purely on lack of citation. If it becomes fully cited then I'll take a read. gren グレン ^? 08:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, even with citations it would still be a spotty and list-heavy article. Andrew Levine 02:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. AndyZ 21:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Kinda surprised this slipped past NPOV considerations on FAC. In contrast, the lead paragraphs of 2004 Republican National Convention heavily criticize the GOP response to demonstrators. Neither article deserves feature status—they're mostly collections of quotes with less than brilliant, often gratingly obvious commentary. But at least the article on the Republican convention makes a pass at NPOV. This one hardly tries, with its PR-speak about how "enraptured" the delegates were with a speech by John Edwards that few people (if any) can now remember a line of. Casey Abell 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this is the diff from roughly when it was featured and its current state. Jkelly 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see much difference between the two versions. Both have major NPOV problems, too much stuff that looks like a party p.r. handout, obvious and amateurish "analysis", and way too many quotes. The lack of references is really the least of the article's problems. Still hard to understand how this got through FAC. Sure, it's very hard to write a good article about party conventions, which have become news-free campaign ads. But this thing is an embarrassment. Casey Abell 01:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]