Wikipedia:Featured article review/Adam Clayton Powell, Jr./archive2

Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

 * Article is no longer a featured article

This article was submitted for removal in April, but the status was kept. I think, however, that it is in a terrible condition, and by no means does it live it to todays FA standards, in my opinion. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 11:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This nomination is also in a terrible condition. You've not made a single edit to the article page, talk page nor specified a single specific problem with the article on this page. Pcb21 Pete 15:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. "Terrible condition" (from me, on the article) might have been strong words. The main issue I have with this article, is that it is way too short. It only has three real sections, the remaining sections being "See also", "Referenecs" and "External links". If you compare it to other featured articles about persons, you will see that they all are much longer than this one is. Also, it only has one picture, which is said to be fair use, but no source is given for the image. (I don't know if the image thing is a requirement for FA here on en:; on no: it is.) Jon Harald Søby \ no na 12:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove - I don't think that the article is long enough in the slightest. I've read through it, and it doesn't seem to offer any in depth information about him at all.  Just a general overview of some important events.  And his personal life section is just a collection of trivia. - Hahnchen 17:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove, for a black legislator who spent 25 years in Congress at the height of the civil rights struggle, you'd think there'd be a lot more to add; this is basically just an overview. There are gaps in the article (Vietnam, for example, was a very divisive issue for Democrats in the last few years of Powell's career, but there's no mention of his stance on the war). The "Personal" selection is a sequence of mostly unrelated one-sentence paragraphs. Our standards have gotten much higher since this article was approved. Andrew Levine 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh lord, please remove! How disappointing that this ever got featured in the first place. Hydriotaphia 19:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. It's way too short and does not stand up to the other political biographies which are featured. David | Talk 21:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove, this is pathetic. If there are two books written about this guy, there should be alot more to say than this. --Spangineeres (háblame)  21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)