Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blackjack/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 08:44, 21 March 2007.
Blackjack edit
Review commentary edit
Has only two inline citations (1c) Beyond seven words in the lead, it does not mention anything about the history and development of the game (1b). Message left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling. Andrew Levine 06:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm, yes a history section would be helpful, but prehaps that would be better placed on a page of its own rather than in the article itself? Think outside the box 11:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it's too long for the main article. Blackjack right now can accommodate a comprehensive history section. Andrew Levine 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, ok then. Think outside the box 09:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it's too long for the main article. Blackjack right now can accommodate a comprehensive history section. Andrew Levine 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have seperated the inline line cites and sources into seperate sections, however its difficult to tell if the sources should more properly be titled further reading, ie where they actually used to construct the article? Multiple other problems: lead makes makes claims not supported in the main text, article contains external jumps, extensive lists, and per nom, fails 1b. + Ceoil 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can somebody explain why this page is here? Blackjack is already listed as a featured article. Sander123 13:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, gotit, I missed the two-step process FAR+FARC. Thanks Andrew. Sander123 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Status — still needs more inline citations and perhaps a quick copy-edit. — Deckiller 22:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really needs a history section to meet 1b. "A note about other player's decisions" section is not encyclopedic and borders on original research. Gzkn 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 11:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 01:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove, no progress, diff since nom. Also, mixed ref style should be corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 18 March 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.