Wikipedia:Featured article review/Encyclopædia Britannica/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 by Nikkimaria 03:19, 6 November 2011.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified: User talk:WillowW, User talk:TimVickers, User talk:Balthazarduju, User talk:JoeSmack, User talk:Flux.books, User talk:Nauticashades, User talk:Stbalbach, User talk:Ericoides, User talk:Fat&Happy, User talk:SandyGeorgia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 2c (inadequate in-line referencing). Snowman (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delegate note - the required talk-page notification does not appear to have been made, so I am placing this nomination on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator's comment: The talk page nomination was made with this edit. Following this an edit made by User:Nikkimaria put the template in hidden text. This looks like a mix up, so I have shown the template again. This FAR is not on hold and can continue. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination and notification are not the same thing, and my edit was deliberate. Please review the FAR instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ample notification to all readers has been provided by a maintenance template that has been on the article for more than one year, where all readers and editors have been invited to improve a poorly referenced section. I see no reason for delaying a FAR any longer. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see no talk page notification.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people will have seen the maintenance template. Surely, a FA should not have had a maintenance template for a year. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, the talk page notification is there (under the heading "FAR" - Nikki just copied Snowman's comments from here). Snowman, the talk page notification process was put in place by community consensus - maintenance templates or the lack thereof on the article don't change the fact that a notification is needed. Further comments on Raul's talk. This review is still on hold. Dana boomer (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A discussion section and a banner notice are two totally different things. I don't know what it means to be on hold, but I don't think there is much chance of this getting cleaned up without a full formal notification. I don't see that any projects have been notified, and I don't really think they should be until this is fully listed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delegate note - Now that the required time has passed for a talk page notification and no work has been completed on the article, I am removing the hold placed on this review, as of the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As a separate note, WP Scotland and WP Chicago should be notified, as they have their banners on the talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this review. The fact that the hold has been removed does not clarify things for me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The review is active and in the FAR stage. Feel free to make suggestions for improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope that members of WP Scotland and WP Chicago are watching the article; nevertheless, for completion I have provided a notification on each talk page of these WikiProjects. WikiProject Books was notified at the time of nomination. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * 1c There are maintenance tags present: citation needed and update needed. Several book sources used are missing page numbers; Kister and Sader being the worst examples. Some listed sources are missing their full information. There are many dead links to sources.
 * 1d Not sure if this is a neutrality problem but the article is not following Criticism very well. The version of this article that passed FAC was in better condition regarding this issue but since promotion it has slid for the worse.
 * 2c Uniformity of dates are needed; currently there is a mixture of dmy ymd and mdy.
 * 3 The following file needs work if it's to remain in the article: File:Rosetta Stone.jpg Using Life +70 tag with no author listed; source links are dead. Needs US copyright tag.
 * MoS MOS:Images because the pics are crowding and sandwiching. WP:EXT because some of the links aren't very helpful to further understanding of the article subject. ie: link to French version doesn't help an English reader. Brad (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, neutrality and images. Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist Major issues are 1c, 2c and WP:CRIT. Brad (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Regarding criteria 2c, I think that the article continues to fail criteria 2c at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist I agree with Brad. --John (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.