Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jonathan Wild/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 01:00, 25 January 2010 [1].
Jonathan Wild edit
Review commentary edit
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: User talk:Geogre, ... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, ...
Promoted in October 2004, its a worthy and interesting subject but has fallen way behind current FA standards.
- Severe lack of citations, some sections are barely cited at all.
- Prose is ok, but not the standard that you'd expect at FA - for instance "By 1724, London political life was experiencing a crisis of public confidence", and "There are a few treatments of Wild that attempt to dramatize his life, but there remains only one full length non-fiction biography on Wild" - British article, and US spelling also.
- Two images lack sufficient source data. Parrot of Doom 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested featured article criterion concerns are citations, prose and copyright YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. I agree with the nom rationale. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to improve the article to address those above concerns, regarding current FA standards. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – As the other reviewers have said, the insufficient citations and prose issues, among other things, cause the article to fail modern FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.