Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium/archive1

Belgium

 * Article is no longer a featured article

This article has several problems
 * No citation at all, and no references
 * It is poorly written and seems amatureish, plus it is in dire need of trimming/rewriting/editing
 * There is only one image that is not a map, and even the maps are of poor quality
 * The links are not organised in any way
 * The article is slightly biased towards the Flemmish government

Definitely NOT featured standard, if you ask me! Páll 07:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove. No references. Lead is too short. Lot's of tiny paras. Nominated a year ago. A good example of how our standards are evolving. This would not pass a FA today. Remove and send to PR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. No references. - Taxman Talk 15:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove - More than enough time given to fix. --mav 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have just added farc to Talk:Belgium (4½ days after it was first nominated). I think we should give its regular editors a chance to respond to this criticism. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there would be any problem with starting the clock based on that time instead. Just gives more time to fix it if someone is able. - Taxman Talk 20:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried to improve on some things, but haven't the knowledge to fix others, such as the "history" jumping from 800 to 1800 in one sentence, after laboring over ancient stuff for several paragraphs.
 * The lead paragraph is still way substandard. And doesn't the article give their art and trade status remarkably short shrift? Sfahey 1 July 2005 04:14 (UTC)


 * Remove The writing is very sloppy in sections. The link dump at the end needs trimming and organizing.  ike9898 July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)