Wikipedia:Featured article review/Franks/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 07:43, 1 September 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at Netherlands, France, Germany, Middle Ages and Ethnic groups --Peter Andersen 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Message left at Owen, Ancient Germanic culture
 * And Wetman, Johanthon, Rex Germanus, Srnec and Angusmclellan --Peter Andersen 20:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Per requirements 1.b and 1.c. This is obviously failed by the sheer number of expand tags that have been placed on the Religion, Art and architecture, Law and Politics sections.
 * 1.b states: ""Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details."

Again this obviously fails per the 3 tags on the page.
 * 1.c states: ""Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate."

The article on reviewing good articles states
 * 1) Scan the article and decide if an article can be "Quick-failed" before an extensive review. Some issues that may lead to a quick fail are:
 * 2) A complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Verifiability.
 * 3) Obviously non-neutral treatment of a topic, see WP:Neutral point of view.
 * 4) The article has any cleanup banners, including but not limited to, , , , etc, or large numbers of , , , or similar tags.

The fact that due to the tags, Franks would be deemed a "Quick-fail" even by GOOD article standards proves that this article shouldn't be featured - and how it came about to be featured is just beyond me.-- daniel  folsom  19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like all the expand tags could be dealt with by just summarizing the appropriate main article (e.g., Migration Period art and Pre-Romanesque for art and architecture). It is, however, obviously in need of inline citations.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not, as the art ones are pretty poor on the Franks too. There are some nice pics at Treasure of Gourdon. Johnbod 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I have just found & linked a much better article on Merovingian art and architecture. Johnbod 02:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article could be improved, but going for a quick fail based on some tags is beyond me. That way a vandal could get any FA quick failed by just adding the tags on an article where the original author is no longer a frequent visitor (note this does not go in a nomination process as some interested editor has to be active to get into the nomination process).
 * As the article has been awarded FA status in the past, for that reason alone it deserves a thorough review. Arnoutf 18:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If a vandal placed random tags on an article they'd be removed. If a tag was placed and turned out it was needed then it'd be left. Keep in mind the quick fail is for the good article status - which is supposed to be one step bellow featured status.-- daniel  folsom  21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, A History of Private Life claims that the Franks invented soup (of the boiled meat variety). Unfortunately doesn't seem to belong anywhere.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 02:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was FA status a long time ago. Times have changed. It is obvious that it needs to be spruced up and expanded soon or have its FA status revoked. But we shouldn't, in my opinion, waste too much time on ranking articles. Srnec 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I've been trying to get more involved lately and I thought I'd start with the Merovingian Franks. Its true the article's a mess, but I'm starting off a wide ranging series of revisions of it and the sister article "Frankish Empire" today, hopefully that will be enough to keep the articles FA Status and to get the "Frankish Empire" article rated too! Anyways, if anyone interested could pitch in on those articles and their talk pages I'd appreciate it. Ethan Hoddes 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell 12:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Status update? Work is being done, but there still seem to be expansion and citation needs. Progress?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove. Since I inquired six days ago, one ref added, one wikilink added, and some spelling corrections. Problems unaddressed, the article has a factual accuracy tag.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove - as I'm the nom ... so per nom.-- daniel  folsom  04:50, 31 August 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.