Wikipedia:Featured article review/Weight training/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 18:33, 4 March 2007.

---

Weight training

Review commentary

Message left at GeorgeStepanek. LuciferMorgan 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Messages left at Bodybuilding and Sports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Basically against my advice they've gutted this article to make what I feel is an ill advised re-organization of the entire weight lifting genre. The fact that featured articles should normally be left alone was thrown out the window and vast amounts of content have been removed. There really is no defense of this as a featured article anymore. The first thing you need to see before you judge this article is the merger discussion. Even though I never worked on the article I was really impressed with it when I first saw it, and am sad to see it go. Quadzilla99 08:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the article when it was featured. Quadzilla99 08:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment have been concerned about FA status of this article since viewing it long ago - unencyclopedic, how-to, listy, and largely uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I also feel that the re-organization was ill-advised, and would be happy to see it put back to how it was before. I didn't chip in at the time because there seemed to be some support for it—and it could have even led to a slight improvement—but it doesn't appear to have been implemented very well. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment not my area of expertise at all, but as above there is far too much "howto" here, and not enough encyclopedic content. Its still a good-ish article but definitely not FA standard as it sits at the moment - PocklingtonDan 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Response One thing I want to comment on is the How-to and list complaints. There is no other way to do a weight training or exercise article. Unless you describe an exercise by saying "a barbell curl is when a person curls up a barbell" you're going to have to go into detail discussing the exercise. There's no way to do that without having somebody describe it as a how-to type of description. Also since everything in weight training is divided up into mathematical form (sets, duration, reps, etc.) some lists and table are also necessitated although the article may indeed have too many of them. Quadzilla99 06:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are organization and focus (2 and 4). Marskell 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per criterion 1c. LuciferMorgan 20:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per Marskell. I originally got it to FA state, but I am not proud of it in its current form. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above. Perhaps in the future, another FA push can be made. But we have a large FAR backlog right now, and we should move along the articles that won't get immediate work. — Deckiller 09:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Remove the move was ill-conceived and failed to improve any of the articles involved in it in my opinion. Sad to see it go this route. Quadzilla99 00:05, 24 February 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.