Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of the Somme/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 22:38, 22 February 2007.

---

Battle of the Somme

Review commentary

Messages left at Johnleemk, MilHist, UK notice board, France, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article due to;

1. Insufficient inline citations (1. c.).
2. Weasly statements made in the article.

LuciferMorgan 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Is there a notification on the article talk page itself?
• Claims of a citation problem would be more helpfully done with {{cn}} tags.
• The real problem with the article is that it doesn't weasel where there is reason to do so. For example, I fixed one footnote which repeated one polemic in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment With no explanation, Jooler (talk · contribs) removed the POV tag from the article, and removed the FAR tag from the talk page. I re-instated the FAR tag, (again) updated the featured link on the talk page, but did not reinstate the POV tag on the article, although it is discussed on the talk page. POV should be added to the list of concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I got confused by edits by 68.4.61.113 - which looked like WP:POINT or just plain silly to me. Especially - [1] - I guess he meant Anglo-centric. I don't really think his comment is valid though nand the issue has beed adressed several times from what I've read. Jooler 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In the past I've been accused of WP:POINT when adding citation tags, so don't really do so nowadays.LuciferMorgan 00:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Status? As we approach two weeks, how's it coming? Can we avoid FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Reply to Sandy's question Most of the editing revolved around the way dates are stylised throughout the article - eg. "17 July" to "17th of July". There's a whole load of direct quotations without appropriate citation. Also, there's a lot of critical commentary in the article upon the effects and success of different aspects of the battle - this is particularly prevalent in the "Conclusion" and "Casualties" sections. I would say this article is heading for FARC. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, most of the editing revolved around manual of style, spelling, grammar, formatting, sourcing and quotes etc - not just fixing the dates. All these things usually get ignored, as far as I can see. The article is probably in better condition now than it had been when it passed the nomination for Featured Article status. Hopefully someone knowledgeable enough about the subject matter can come along and insert some citations though, and make the alleged "POV statements" more balanced, if they exist. --Mal 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), and POV statements (1d). Marskell 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks great at surface and should remain a FA.--Pupster21 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per 1c and 1d. LuciferMorgan 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove as per above Wandalstouring 13:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove as per 1c. Boabbriggs 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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.