Wikipedia:Featured article review/Marshall Plan/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:58, 7 May 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: SimonP, Mosedschurte, Stor stark7, Socialism WP, Politics WP, US History WP

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a 2005 FA that has not been reviewed since, and is currently sitting near the top of Featured articles/Cleanup listing. There are citation needed tags sprinkled through the article, as well as many paragraphs and some full sections completely without references. There are at least two deadlinks, and the ref formatting needs some work to make it consistent. I also have concerns about the article meeting the high quality sources criteria, as there are many websites and general references being used, while many specific references are left languishing in the Further reading section. Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed 100% with Dana's analysis. There are way too many unsourced portions in this article, and the print sources should be integrated. Toolbox, surprisingly, shows only one dead link. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing, MOS  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll '')  05:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist per nom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist - nothing has happened to the article since I nominated it for FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist. I'm afraid the article is incurable. No amount of small fixes can substitute for a proper rewrite. It's not a matter of refs and links, but of overall composition - sections developed independently, unduely bloated, sprinkled with conflicting and dubious statements. There's no plan in it. I'd recommend trimming it all down to a bare skeleton and then adding content from scratch - in due proportion, not indiscriminately - but this is hardly possible. NVO (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist - Unaddressed significant concerns, per . -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.