Wikipedia:Featured article review/Carl Sagan/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 13:13, 20 February 2007.

Carl Sagan

Review commentary

Messages left at Eloquence, Biography, Skepticism. Jeffpw 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Message left at Astronomy. Dr. Submillimeter 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Additional messages at intelligent design, Novels, Pseudoscience, and Physics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2004 promotion. Issues,

References: few inline cites, several of which are not from reliable sources, otherwise the article is basically unreferenced
Images: Many fair use images, none of which have the required fair use rationales besides they aren't all being used in a way that would make them fair
Prose and comprehensiveness: For someone who has been the subject of at least 3 book length biographies (according to the article) the article is really pretty sketchy, the text skips around focusing on controversial points rather than providing a good biographical summary; structurally it is mostly single sentences; awards and medals is just a list.
External links: a mess.

--Peta 00:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment needs more inline citations. Agree that some of the prose is choppy and that fair use images need to be reduced and to have accurate rationales. I dealt with the external links section. It would be a shame to demote this, but it could do with some work. - Francis Tyers · 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References need cleaning up to a consistent and complete bibliographic format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lead could do with expanding. Very choppy prose, particularly with the paragraphing. Trebor 23:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, external links pruned, no other progress during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns few inline citations (1c), images (3), prose (1a), and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - no substantive changes since the last time I looked.--Peta 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 12:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above, nothing happening. Trebor 12:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. + Ceoil 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above; I really wish editors would express interest so they could work as a team with the FAR panel. — Deckill er 04:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 18 February 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.