Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Criticism of Tony Blair/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:25, 3 April 2009.

Criticism of Tony Blair

 * Nominator(s): Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an interesting topic and a thorough article. It is an important page as it deals with Iraq war, etc. It has been heavily worked on by many editors. It would be of great interest to anyone reading it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Sorry, but this seems to need a total reworking. The lead is two sentences long; the article at no point even mentions who Blair is; the body text is just a laundry list of assorted complaints, some of which border on outright BLP violations ("Blair continues to be condemned internationally as a liar" and so on), with no apparent attempt made to provide evidence as to whether they're true or to put them into context; I count five "citation needed"s, and one is unacceptable on a controversial high-profile BLP like this; there are some glaringly dated statements ("As of August 2005 Blair had yet to collect the medal…" when five seconds on Google would have shown this is no longer the case, for example). Plus, this is your sole contribution to the entire article. Sorry to be harsh, but I'd strongly suggest withdrawing this nomination now. –  iride scent  15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Iridescent and bad formatting of references. — R  2  16:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This article has existed since September 2006, when it was broken out from Tony Blair. A comparison of the article at creation to now shows what might be expected of an article that has had 130 total edits, no more than 10 by any single editor: this is not a comprehensive, cohesive article about significant criticisms, but rather a coatracky list of complaints. It is a little better cited than most, but that is saying very little; many of the sources do not meet WP:RS. Many of the assertions are blatantly NPOV in presentation. Undue weight is a problem throughout, beginning with the "Bush's poodle" comment in the lead. From a BLP standpoint, this is unacceptable on many fronts. Maralia (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Apparently prepared without any knowledge of or concern for FA criteria or for WP policy, this is about the worst featured candidate I've seen. A template for how not to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't be too harsh, I'm sure the nom was made in good faith. Let's not scare him off. — R  2  20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the dab finder tool.
 * Fix the 1 dead external link found with the checker tool.
 * The ref ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6908308.stm ) needs to be cited properly and a ref name should be used instead to cite this ref more than once, checked with the WP:REFTOOLS script.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - sorry, but nowhere near Featured in too many ways to be fixable in any reasonable timeframe -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will withdraw the nomination. I agree the way in which it is written is not up to standard, it was really the content which I thought might be of more interest.217.43.238.206 (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Featured Articles are intended to represent the very best work on Wikipedia, not the most interesting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.