Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anno Domini/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 14:29, 4 December 2007.

Review commentary

 * Notifications left at WP Time, WP Christianity and WP Years. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for a featured article review because: To me it just generally seems very sloppy for a featured article --Hadseys 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has an unacceptable number of one paragraph sections
 * It has only 13 inline citations, which for an article of its size, is unacceptable
 * Yes, this is one of the old Refreshing of Brilliant Prose articles. It now has 10 citations after combining, and they come almost all from one source. Do we need the "Numbering of years" section? It's more about year zero than the subject of this article.  Pagra shtak  20:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

i question the 525 AD origin. Jesus was calculated by 19x 28 years = 28x 19 years which is 532 years from birth to 532 AD. Birth would now be called 1 BC since 1 AD must be one year for 532 AD to be 532 years. I wonder if the source for 525 AD might be someone pushing a 7 BC birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.196.43 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a confusion between the periodicity of the calendar and when it began to be used. But the statement needs to be rephrased anyway. Dionysius Exiguus invented dating from the Incarnation; but the phrase Anno Domini is from Bede IIRC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Would the nominator please notify relevant Wikiprojects and editors as per the FAR instructions? Thanks. --RelHistBuff 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns prose structure (1a) and citations (1c). Marskell 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove unless PMA wishes to do a lot of work on it. 1a and 1c. Tony   (talk)  14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove, there is still too much unexplained to convince me the article is comprehensive, and there is a good deal of uncited text. Some examples:
 * In 1422, Portugal became the last Western European country to adopt the Anno Domini system.
 * History, the first two paragraphs (uncited) give a brief overview, but seem to stop short of exploring the kind of detail I'd expect in a comprehensive featured article.
 * Another brief sentence which just doesn't explore or explain in depth:
 * Blackburn & Holford-Strevens briefly present arguments for 2 BC, 1 BC, or AD 1 as the year Dionysius intended for the Nativity or Incarnation.
 * Popularization, lots of citation needed.
 * Synonyms important lack of citations.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:23, 1 December 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.