Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Data Access Components/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 Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * ''WikiProjects notified

This article was passed almost four years ago and a large majority of the paragraphs have no citations at all.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 15:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. This is for WP:ACCESSIBILITY to the visually impaired. Eubulides (talk)


 * My opinion is it fails on citations straight out, it appears quite a few of the references that are used are dead as well (or as least for me). Also there is only one image there should be quite a few more. Personal i say it might fail GA never mind FA. The table has no references to where the information has come from i am pretty sure it would be on microsoft website somewhere. Other than them i would say it is of FA status, but i am not going to review it throughly because of the above problems.--Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just reviewed the sources and maybe 3-10 of them are possible unrealible well 2 are certainly are as they are blogs.--Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 18:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 00:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist. Jeez, with such a sexy article title, I'm shocked this hasn't gotten more reviews. :) Needs inline citations on a lot of paragraphs, and linkchecker shows at least three dead references. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per self  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist, per . Cirt (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per citation concerns. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist Per ciation and references concerns--Andy ( talk  -  contrib ) 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist Per per . Article has not been worked on in 2009. &mdash; mattisse  (Talk) 15:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.