Wikipedia:Featured article review/Władysław Sikorski/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 Joelr31 02:45, 9 March 2009 [1].

Władysław Sikorski

Review commentary

Piotrus (talk · contribs), Logologist (talk · contribs), WP:POLAND and WP:MILHIST notified.

Several paragraphs appear to be primarily based upon one reference, while others have citation needed tags and/or no references whatsoever. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination seems like some kind of misunderstanding. I spotted one citation–needed tag. Are we at the right place? --Poeticbent talk 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My nom isn't a misunderstanding, several paragraphs seem to be backed up by a single source, I spotted 3/4 citation-needed tags and a few paragraphs are unsourced. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some messy referencing thing moved to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences and assertions in the section Władysław_Sikorski#Prime_Minister_in_exile are rather close to those in a David Irving book. Compare "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland emerging from the war with territorial losses" to the book's "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland alone emerging from the war with territorial losses." [2] p. 13. This book also contains some of the quotes for which citations were requested.The unyielding stance on borders is not supported by this book cite [3] ("refused to make a firm statement in support of Poland's eastern borders") or here "unique among the exiled Polish politicians for his determination to negotiate with the Soviet Union" [4]. Novickas (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing examples on Talk:Władysław Sikorski. Novickas (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this is an FA in which case.... I would have to suggest that the sentences in question are completely reworked to avoid "close paraphrasing". D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a rewrite, and more referencing. Which, in all honestly, I currently do not have the time to do, particularly as I am helping save the Warsaw Uprising article, also on FARC. Once that one is closed, I will see if I can help with this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about the first footnote and the first book in the list. The first was written for Sikorski's anniversary by a government agency whose name makes me wonder whether it is a propaganda outlet. Aside from that the book is just referenced generally without pages for the paragraphs cited. The second one, is the museum intended to "promote his legacy" etc? If so, I would also be dubious if it had a pre-ordained intention...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and copy-vio. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, strongly agree with above assessment by D.M.N. (talk · contribs), and comments by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Referencing issues throughout the article, not befitting current standards at FAC for FAs. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 February 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.