Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ku Klux Klan/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 17:40, 9 May 2008.

---

Ku Klux Klan

Review commentary

Notified: User:Bcrowell, User:GordonUS, User:Shanes, User:Parkwells, User:Darwinek, User:Luna Santin, Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history, Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama, Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination, Wikipedia:WikiProject Secret Societies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee

Nominating this article for review for several reasons. First, the factual accuracy has been harmed by various POV commentary and original research placed within the text. More editors need to be involved with the article. Second, the article is moving away from neutral, and in several instances, has eliminated some KKK wrongdoing. The article is not stable any longer, and is subject to various edit wars. It is a solid FA but it has grown some POV statements that would prevent it from being a FA if done now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the history section shows the disruption seems to be caused by one editor. It would be better just to revert this user or blcok him, rather than terminate the entire article status as a FA if that is the case. Yahel Guhan 06:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggest resubmit later for FA, not now Article has lock on it saying there is dispute. So solve dispute then reapply for FA. I must say that I am not neutral about KKK. I do not like KKK. But if disputes fixed then it could be a FA because you can hate KKK and still think article is written very good (I mean good prose, not make them look good). 219.240.73.145 (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), neutrality (1d), and stability (1e). Marskell (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of work needed, a quick glance shows a proliferation of MoS errors; if anyone is actually working on the article I can list them. See also needs attention, per WP:GTL. There are also citation tags and uncited text. Unless someone is actually working to salvage this article, I don't have a big interest in reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Citation needed markers need clearing, and the uncited paragraphs would benefit from references as this is a contentious topic. The "Popular culture" section is not comprehensive and off-focus. It lists trivial instances of no lasting impact whatever and jumps from 1891 to 2000, missing all references to the cultural impact of the Klan in the intervening years. The important cultural legacy of Griffith's film and Klan iconography is in a preceding section, which may indicate structural problems as the details of the Klan's cultural impact are split across sections. "See also" and "External links" sections are too long. Citations could be better formatted, in particular by removing redundancy and duplication of details also given in the "References" section. I think it would be better to standardise the image sizes, at present it looks untidy with images of different sizes adjacent to each other. I recommend using the default, as that will also reduce length marginally. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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