Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krag-Jørgensen/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 Raul654 05:14, 8 July 2009.

Review commentary
''WikiProjects notified


 * Problems with (1c) The article is almost entirely sourced to one reference and large amounts of unsourced paragraphs. The minority refs do not have publisher info and look like a personal website.
 * A lot of listy bits
 * Inconsistent formatting of numbers, etc  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Inconsistent formatting of numbers is an easy fix and shouldn't count, and I'm not concerned by the single reference source- the source could be the definitive text on the subject, making reference elsewhere redundant, for example. I do agree the article could use a few more references for some of the paragraphs, but generally it seems OK to me. Commander Zulu (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: there are a number of paragraphs without an in line citation. The basic rule for B class is at least one per paragraph or block of information, so I imagine that for FA it would need this at a minimum. I would probably like to see page numbers in the citations, but that is not necessarily a must. On the whole, though, it has good content, seems well written, it is well illustrated, etc. Probably just needs a few minor fixes and should be able to stay listed in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Counter-comment (Comment on comment? Whatever :)) There are no rules that say you must have a certain number of cites per paragraph. There are rules that say that "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.", and in practice this does usually mean that at least one cite per para is necessary, but I wouldn't want anyone to think that getting to FA-standard means achieving a greater and greater density of citations. If you're using high quality printed media references, you can often get the desired result with fewer cites than if you're using a ragbag of random websites, for example. Rant over. :) 4u1e (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No there isn't and definitely if you write a sport bio from web only you will need a different news/stats report for each game whereas with a dedicated biog it will all worked into the same place. But still, (1c) "well researched" generally implies that there is a variety of sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the book the editor used might very well be the Definitive Text on the subject. There isn't always a need for many sources, IMHO. Commander Zulu (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Image problems: Sources and rationales required for File:Krag-Jørgensen-Hotchkiss.jpg, File:Krag-Jørgensen-Speed Loader 2.jpg and File:Krag-Jørgensen SNABB38.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist per own statement  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, agree with above assessment by . Cirt (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist Claims like "design was considered promising", "made the rifle more cumbersome" and "...for use when hunting seals from small boats. They were turned down due to the high cost of manufacturing" ought to have sources. DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.