Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tony Blair/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 20:25, 19 June 2007.

Tony Blair

Review commentary

Messages left at Bio, England, British Government, Scotland, and Politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not stable and won't be until he leaves office. More damningly, at the time I'm writing this, there are 12 "citation needed" on the page. --Philip Stevens 07:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to agree. The article has flaws: it's undercited, the refs are messy, the external links need trimming, etc. But mainly it will suffer from stability problems until he leaves office, and probably for a good while afterwards. There will doubtless be a large amount written about him over the next couple of months, which will provide many more sources with which to improve the article. Considering the increased scrutiny the article will come under during his departure from office, I don't think we want to use this as an example of our "best" work. And given that some of the problems stem from stability, I feel that "saving" this article would be very tricky. Trebor 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree on the [citation needed]s, but I'm not so sure about the stability issue: the stability criterion as I understand it refers more to the structure of an article (eg, if sections are being added and removed on a daily basis) than the topic itself. In addition, I can't imagine the content of the article changing greatly between now and mid-June (his resignation date); unless he has a violent change of career (eg, a shock reunion of Ugly Rumours), 95% of the article will not change. Finally, even if does turn out that the resignation somehow generates barrel-loads of text, it does seem rather odd to remove the FA status of an article just for a month just because it may be unstable; surely so long as there are people willing to cleanup any new additions, it doesn't matter that it is changing daily; isn't that part of the wonder of Wiki! Laïka 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are quite a bit of citation needed tags, plus there are listy sections, and the prose could be better written (i.e. the "Portrayals" and "Works" sections). Also, nowhere in this article do I get a clear view of Blair's terms Prime Minister, or what he has done during them (accomplishments, economy, foraign affairs, etc.). Take Ronald Reagan--Although his article is far from perfect, it's pretty much in chronological order (like Blair's), but it clearly outlines Reagan's major initiatives as President during his first and second terms. Reagan's article does not contain a criticism section, however, because I was told during a failed FA candidacy that the criticisms should be incorporated into the correct sections that were being citicised. Again, if you see the "Reaganomics and the economy" section, for examlpe, in Reagan's article, it goes into detail about the critics of Reagan's policies, and what was said. There was once a criticism section, but everything in it is now in the correct sections on the page. I would recommend doing that for Blair, and I agree with Philip Stevens and Trebor, and think that the article is not a suitable FA any longer. Happyme22 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This diff [1] indicates to me the article's stable - one detail of his career has been played out in the media in the last week or two, and the article has been updated in consequence. That's not an edit war or a disagreement of substance. The citation needed tags should be dealt with but this won't be a major problem, they mainly seem to be quite easy statements to source (or indeed some could simply be removed). The Land 07:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deficiencies:

Citations needed
WP:MSH issues
Strange sections at bottom, not conforming with WP:GTL (what is Miscellany, and why do the navigational templates at the bottom of the article have a section heading?)
See also needs pruning per WP:GTL; most of that should be worked into the text or may already be in the text.
Inconsistent ref formatting employing numerous styles, some unformattted refs, and strange full blue links. The references will require a sustained cleanup effort.
Lots of stubby sections, some with only one or two sentences, and several one-sentence paragraphs.
I corrected them with Gimmetrow's ref fixer, but regular editors should become familiar with ref placement at WP:FN
ce review in order — I saw a sentence missing punctuation, so regular editors should run through.

This looks doable, but editors will need to get on it, and keep us apprised of progress. Urgently, citations and reference formatting should be attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stability (1e), citations (1c), and formatting issues (2). Marskell 09:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per (1c). --Philip Stevens 11:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Philip Stevens. It isn't terrible, but it needs editors who are prepared to remove anything people insert without a reference, or add one when they do. Additionally, Image:Blair school.JPG looks odd. The metadata says it was created 30 June 2007, which is a little strange considering Blair is shown as a boy, and this is the 1st June. DrKiernan 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is probably accounting for how young and refreshed he will look after being relieved of his heavy burden of office. =) Christopher Parham (talk) 07:47, 2 June 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.