Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Jet engine

Jet engine

 * Article is no longer a featured article

While not a bad article, there are no references of any kind, the lead is not comprehensive and there are empty sections, remove--nixie 07:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep - I am not sure this subject needs as many references as, say, a history article. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   08:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the authors of this article received the information from the ether, the consulted references, and should have provided them. Without references, which make an article verifiable, they do no meet the featured article criteria (something you should familiarise yourself with if you are going to vote on such matters).--nixie 08:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Having watched this (outstanding) article grow, I am in no doubt that the writers know a great deal about their subject, perhaps being aerospace engineers themselves (as I have been). The knowledge came from their profession. I am in no doubt that this article represents some of the very best work on wikipedia, references notwithstanding. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I still think it is a great article. How about adding to items you find problematic ? I wouldn't know where to start though. Perhaps some references to historical engines ? The pictures do a good job of explaining the text, but I understand that is not a cite. Wizzy&hellip;  &#9742;   15:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another outstanding engineering article, TGV, made it to the front page yesterday. It has some references, but hardly important ones. Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   08:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove: No references --Carnildo 08:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per nom. Saravask 17:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keeeep, per Wizzy...Phoenix2 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove, no references. Absolute requirement. Even if their knowledge came from their profession, it has to be recorded somewhere to be verifiable per WP:V. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Good article but I agree, a FA cannot lack references, WP:V is very clear Mikkerpikker 01:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Lack of references. --Allen3 talk 13:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)