Wikipedia:Featured article review/Equal Protection Clause/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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:45, 15 June 2009 [1].
Equal Protection Clause edit
FAR commentary edit
FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to have an essay-style tone to it. Could get away a bit from the primary sources and focus on secondary - a bit of reworking and overall referencing improvement throughout the article could help with this. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, especially with the 6th section title. Also to me the article seems a bit unfocused and disorganized. I'd suggest splitting by Supreme Court case interpretation and how the EPC stands on affirmative action, etc. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote it, and I agree. It 'is' too essayistic, I now see. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to go back and change it. Thanks and good luck! Hydriotaphia (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure and organisation. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, FA concerns not addressed. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending more detailed explanation of the article's problems. I find it disturbing that a few generic sentences about the article's problems fermenting on this page with almost no attention can result in a delisting. --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.