Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cristero War/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 09:32, 25 May 2007.

---

Cristero War

Review commentary

Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and User talk:Mpolo. Marskell 15:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Additional message at Mexico. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It could be a lot larger, it doesn't present a single historian's view, it's not really NPOV, it's too fragmented and it simply reads bad. It doesn't even remotely meet the featured article standards. Mixcoatl 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

References and external links are combined in one section, with no inline citations. This article will need quite a bit of work to remain featured, I think. Pagrashtak 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

POV and contradictory. It first defines the movement as a conflict between "Church" and the "State" (POV by any matter), but then it jumps back and forth saying the episcopate didn't support the armed conflict but then it did, and then that the Pope explicitly supported the actions, then that he didn't. The phrase "anti-Catholic government of the time" is POV too. After all, it wasn't the government of the time, but the constitution, still in place, that separated Church and State. --the Dúnadan 19:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Besides references, here's some other issues that could use fixing:
  • Dates shouldn't use "th", see WP:DATE.
  • Section headers shouldn't start with "The", see WP:HEAD.
  • Headers generally should not repeat the title of the article, see WP:HEAD.
  • Could probably use an infobox.
  • Incorrect WP:DATE linking, sometimes when a month and year appear together they are linked into the year ie June 1926, March 1928.
  • No fair use rational here. Quadzilla99 16:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Also the section titled "References and external links" needs to be broken up into two sections obviously as stated above. Quadzilla99 02:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with the comments above, and that this article does not meet NPOV standards. It also seems to confuse anti-clericalism (which was a definitely a feature of the constitution) with anti-catholicism. Finally, it fails to give the important antecedents to the conflict, making it seem like the anti-clerical articles of the 1917 Constitution were created ex-nihilo at the time, ignoring the long history of conflict between Independent Mexico and the organized clergy (and yes, particularly the Catholic Church in Mexico). This article should be labeled as "previously featured", though it probably should not have made it that far in the first place. Magidin 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How the hell did this article ever achieve FA status without a single reference?? Happy-melon 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), comprehensiveness (1b), organization and sectioning (2). Marskell 18:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per everything pointed out on FAR. This article hasn't been edited since May 5. Quadzilla99 11:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Non-free images lack fair use rationale, references and external links are mixed, lead is insufficient, multiple "citation needed" requests. Pagrashtak 19:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per 1c and 1d. LuciferMorgan 12:54, 21 May 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.