Wikipedia:Featured article review/Athanasius Kircher/archive2


 * 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 18:25, 13 March 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Medicine and the article's main editors:  (known as Markalexander100 when he first nominated the article for FA in 2004) and .

Kircher was promoted to FA in 2004. The article does not meet 1b, 1c, 2a of the FA criteria.

Explanation:


 * 1b - Article seems like it could be significantly expanded; "Medicine" section is quite underdeveloped, considering Kircher's work on his germ theory of disease (which has been covered by a number of scholarly sources).
 * 1c - No inline citations, whatsoever. All references are from websites, some of which may not be reliable.
 * 2a - Short lead, needs to be expanded/rewritten to serve as a standalone outline of the entire article.

These issues can easily be fixed, but it may take a while. It would be best that the article be put through FAC again once the issues are resolved. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the invite. The reference issue seems to me relatively trivial: inline citations could be added by anyone with an afternoon to spare much faster than it will take us to talk about it; as for all the references being from websites, would the Catholic Encyclopedia be more reliable if we cited the paper version?
 * However, I do agree that the article seems rather brief by today's standards, and could probably do with expansion. HenryFlower 08:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The New Catholic Encyclopedia (which is dead-tree only) would be much preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), citations (1c), and LEAD (2a). Marskell (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is nice, but there are some open issues: MoS inconsistencies (some wikilinking of single years), referencing inconsistencies (such as external jumps: "his celebrity, his technomania and his bizarre eclecticism" [2]"), tags for lack of citations etc. The lead is not bad IMO. The content is, again IMO, comprehensive. I think the article could be saved, in case somebody works a bit on it! I am a weak remover, hoping there will be some interest in the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove, nothing happening, needs a tuneup, strange arrangement of appendices, citation needed tags throughout, and at least three different citation styles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.