Wikipedia:Featured article review/Markup language/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 10:38, 27 March 2007.

Review commentary

 * Brilliant prose promotion, talk messages left at Computing and Computer science. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is first most lacking prose, it's pieces of text placed here and there, with no clear connection with each other. The article is under referenced, only three inline references, and two additional references. The last section Some Basic HTML tags is right out of context. When reading the article, you get the feeling it has already been talked about earlier in the article. I feel that the article would need a major rewrite to be able to be called a featured article again. In my opinion, it fails criteria 1:a, 1:c, 2:a, 2:b, 2:c, 3 and 4→ Aza Toth 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; fails across the board. This article is going to need a lot of work, and I hope at least one of the primary editors is interested in a referencing and copy-editing campaign. &mdash; Deckiller 16:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Yikes. I agree; this definitely needs a lot of work. Neat picture though. Gzkn 12:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), citations (1c), LEAD (2a), MOS issues (2), images (3), and focus (4). Marskell 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 11:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove per 1c AND 4. Bill (who is cool!) 18:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove Lead is an insufficent overview of the topic. The first sentence "A markup language combines text and extra information about the text" means nothing to me. Futher down, the copy is sometimes self-referencing, and is riddled with parentheses. Article contains cite requests, and misuses the summary style. It is under sourced, and has an extraneous "see also" section. Ceoil 22:17, 17 March 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.