Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baroque/archive1

Baroque

Article is still a featured article.

This article is featured on the main page but has had serious issues for quite a while now.

1. It includes pictures without copyright tags.
2. There is no section with references.
3. The structure is messy, it includes very short sections and the ordering is not very insightful.
4. There is no clear lead section.
5. The images are overwhelming the article instead of supporting the text.

Hopefully its listing here will stimulate improvements. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 10:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose removal: I feel that in this case it would be an instance of retrofitting current requirements on what is a reasonable article. Obviously I'd like to see the lead shortened and references section added and the image copyright thing sorted and the images made smaller, but no to defeaturing. Filiocht 11:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well thats the point. All featured articles should meet at least a base level of the same standards. If they don't, remove them and then get them back in just like any other article. I still oppose removal while it is on the main page though. - Taxman 18:36, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think Filiocht has a point here - when we add new requirements (like the requirement for referneces), the idea not to retroactively apply them because that would be unfair to older articles. And I think he is correct that this is an example of exactly that. →Raul654 17:50, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose removal for now: although this is not of the very highest quality and I doubt would get Featured now, I think it is (barely) good enough to stay featured. But the above criticisms are valid. I've tried to make the images a bit less messy and overwhelming, although the structure and content is not not brilliant. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - I listed a few of the same concerns as above on the talk page in order to give the editors a chance to fix it before listing here. I think that is only fair. But if I had seen it coming up as a front page article I would have opposed that there. Now I think since there is a listing of what is wrong with the article on the talk page, maybe all the viewers to it today will help with fixing its problems. - Taxman 13:12, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment. Well I've made an attempt myself to fix at least the structure and create a proper lead. I do think that the text in general is not feature quality material, the flow and readability are below par. It can be fixed, but really needs work. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 15:48, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, now support removal. It has not improved enough while being on the main page. It does have major stuctural issues, has no references, and seems to lack coverage in important topics. - Taxman 05:34, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • I still support removal, it has improved to be at least readable now and not a complete mess, but it's definitely not up to our current FA standards. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 07:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)