Wikipedia:Featured article review/Krag-Petersson/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 03:03, 3 August 2009.

Review commentary
Article fails 1c. Apart from two hobby websites, one book is cited, and no details are given wrt page numbers, just the name of the book. Images are dubiously tagged under 100 years after death but the designer died in 1916.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Commons (which the files are duplicates of), the copyright was valid during the owner's life plus 70 years, and as he died in 1916, the copyright has expired.--LWF (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are many problems with this article; consider this to be a "delist" !vote when this moves into FARC mode.
 * There is too much of a reliance on one source.
 * Page numbers are needed.
 * Even when assuming that citations cover more than one sentence (and I'm not confident of that, with seeing multiple [2]'s in one paragraph), I still see much that is unreferenced.
 * I don't think refs 1 and 4 are reliable.
 * THis is without checking the prose... — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I've given the article a quick copy edit and have added citation needed and weasel word tags where the appropriate items should be added or fixed.
 * Citations 1 and 4 are not reliable.
 * "Mechanism" is used twice in the first sentence of the design section.
 * "Major" components is an imprecise term.
 * The extremely heavy reliance on just one source, particularly since that source isn't in English, makes me unhappy.
 * The photos need alt text and should be checked for fair use criteria.
 * The anthropomorphism exhibited toward countries: "France also tested" ... makes me uncomfortable, but that might be a common use in military articles. This should be checked against MILHIST style and corrected if necessary.
 * USD figures vary in style and presentation in the article. These should follow WP:MOS.
 * Was the weapon used at all during the WWII resistance? Given its age and the fact that it was sold to civilians, it seems possible.


 * Overall, this article could be kept as an FA with just a bit of work on the citations. The prose is acceptable, if not particularly striking, but there are a few weasel words and unclear spots. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist per above  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, per . Cirt (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist. If citations are added, drop a line on my talk page, and I'll reconsider. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:46, 13 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.