Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alchemy/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 18:06, 14 July 2007.

Alchemy

Review commentary

Whateley23, IPSOS, Sj, WP Egypt, WP Ancient Egypt, WP History of Science, WP Chemistry notified

Featured Article criteria 1c requires that "Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations...complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." The article has been tagged with a "Needs inline references" template for over a month now as it is lacking inline citations. Additionally, the article may not qualify as "stable" given the significant edits that appear to be ongoing. --ElKevbo 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that this article is FA in the first place. I notice some refs like http://www.planetherbs.com/articles/processing_chinese_herbs.htm and http://www.herbalist-alchemist.com/benefits.htm are really, just rubbish. Not WP:RS. The "Medical alchemy" section makes claims which are really unscientific. --Rifleman 82 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it certainly does seem other worldly. DrKiernan 13:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has several deficiencies. Besides the lack of references, there are some likely POV issues and some things that look just factually wrong. --Itub 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is referencing (1c). Marskell 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Fails 1b (at 26k it's quite short for an article on a major subject), 1c (insufficient inline citations), 1d (some of the claims seem heavily in favour of views outside of mainstream science without contradicting statements) and 2d. DrKiernan 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove In the history section there is a reference to a larger article Alchemy in history as the main article. That article references Alchemy as the main article. Which one has the lead? Probably both should be merged. There are also one paragraph subsections that ought to be merged or rewritten. --RelHistBuff 15:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 23:03, 12 July 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.