Wikipedia:Featured article review/Voting system/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 04:26, 3 November 2009 [1].
Review commentary
edit| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: WikiProject Politics
I am nominating this featured article for review because there is many problems with this article. First of all there seems to be an excessive amount of external links, also the following criterion seem to be violated:
- 1a. Some of the text seems confusing.
- 1c. Many paragraphs (outside of the history section) contain uncited assertions and or statistics
- 3. Images could use some alt text, although this is only a minor issue.
Nominator note: I'm not sure what users I should notify, beyond the WikiProject could someone help me with this? Feinoha Talk, My master 06:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jean Charles Borda.jpg has an obsolete tag and lacks author information. File:Condorcet.jpg lacks author and source information (other than wikipedia). DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These images date to the 1700s and are public domain due to age regardless of where they were taken from. Scott Ritchie (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Major sections are without or with almost no references.--Sum (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:37, 21 October 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.