Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Wrath of God/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 by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [1].
Operation Wrath of God edit
Review commentary edit
Operation Wrath of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User:Reenem, WT:ISRAEL, WT:PALESTINE
I raised concerns on the talk page a week ago. WikiProjects Palestine and Israel were notified of my talk page post, but no changes have neen made to the article since.
- The prose is very choppy, with lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
- Nearly half of the "Operations" section is "On [date], [event]". This sentence structure is repeated ad nauseam and begging for a copy edit.
- Entire third paragraph of "Attempted assassination of Golda Meir in Rome" is unsourced.
- Sports Illustrated is tagged as an unreliable source, but I don't see how it is unreliable.
- "the cited resource was decommissioned in 2008 and TKB records were later adopted by START. However a search of the available records (via http://www.start.umd.edu/start/) failed to uncover the originally cited material." — major WP:V issue, suggest outright removing the source then.
- Black September Response seems short and has a one-sentence paragraph. Could this be combined somewhere else?
- The "Notes" section has three dead links, all of which are bare URLs.
The article was FA nearly six years ago, and as usual, it hasn't been checked to make sure it still meets standards. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC – The nine tags that I count in the article highlight issues that cause a failure of modern FA criteria. The copy-edit tag brings up a classic case of proseline, the numerous dead links are also troublesome, and the unreliable source tag for SI is debateable. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Featured article criteria mentioned as at issue in the review section include prose and references. Dana boomer (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, none of my concerns above have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per TenPoundHammer's comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The tag saying that Sports Illustrated was unreliable has been removed, but the remaining issues are still unaddressed. Unfortunately, I don't believe this meets FA requirements any more. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.