Wikipedia:Featured article review/King James Version of the Bible/archive1

King James Version of the Bible

 * Article is no longer a featured article.

Major review commentary
My main beef with this article is that none of the sources are cited. This was brought to attention by an editor who placed a fact tag on the criticism section. It seemed unfair to require a citation for that seciton, when nothing else in the article was cited. Then I realized, a FA just cannot get away with not citing its sources. --Andrew c 03:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an interesting question underlying this. What's the usual practice for older FAs that may not meet standards arrived at by more recent consensus? When you say "cited" here, you really mean "footnoted". It's perfectly possible to cite sources in a general way without footnotes. This is, in fact, what print encyclopedias do -- I've never seen a footnote in one. My impression is that we use them here for the sake of credibility since that's often called into question. That may not have been the case back in 2004 when this article became an FA. So-- do we go through all older FAs lacking footnotes and review their status? Or just address those that come to our attention? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think to insure everything is verifiable, we should have a very strict standard in regards to citing sources (because wikipedia can be edited by anyone, we don't have the prestige and 'trust' that print encyclopedias have earned). And if that means loosing a whole slew of FAs, so be it. If the articles have references, it shouldn't be terribly hard for a group of editors to track down the books and go through adding citations. But I honestly do not feel that an article that does not have inline citations can qualify for a FA. GA, possibly.--Andrew c 04:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the consensus had emerged previously that if the refs are there in a References section, an older FA will not be automatically defeatured for not having footnotes. There's a thread open about this on the talk page right now. Marskell 08:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which talk page? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The FAR talk page under "FARC Consensus re: sources". Marskell 09:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although that consensus was based on a previous consensus at WP:FARC. The idea is, when all of a sudden FAs required inline citations, almost no FAs actually had them. Most had sources, and those that didn't were urged to add them and later culled, but inline cites are (as of right now) only a requirement for new FAs. Obviously, though, it's better to have inline cites than not. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Main FA criteria concern is lack of citations (2c). Marskell 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus the writing (2a). I say Remove unless someone can go through it to fix the stubby paragraphs and otherwise copy-edit it.

Tony 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "has had a profound impact on English literature as a whole"—spot the three redundant words in this opening sentence.
 * "are replete with inspiration derived from"—can we go plain and simple; this borders on the pretentious (sorry to be blunt).
 * "the majority of extant texts of the time"—as soon as I see reference to "the majority of", rather than "most", I feel like seeing the numbers.
 * "King James Version", referred to as a term, appears in both italic and roman face.
 * "It" is a problem in the final para of the lead.
 * "And remain(ed) so" appears twice in three sentences.
 * Reluctant delist References are too important to ignore. Even if an article is well written, if it's not referenced, we don't know if it's outdated, POV, etc.  Although many editors have been involved with the article since it was nominated for FAR, it doesn't seem there is anyone who will take on the job of referencing the article.  Sandy 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened here? It got its featured article status removed without a consensus in the talk page?  Is this normal practice?  Where do I go to propose that its star back, as it now has scads of sources cited? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)