Wikipedia:Featured article review/Muhammad Ali Jinnah/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 User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008 [1].

Muhammad Ali Jinnah[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Listed WikiProjects notified. A lot of unsourced content, fails also the stability criterion. Article could also do with a wider variety of sources, the main source is by Rajmohan Gandhi, who is a historian, but is also the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, who was an associate of Jinnah. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the arguments found right here, content, in paragraphs or single statements, can indeed by stated without verifiable sources because readers are supposed to know about the history or every single subject and if they don't, they shouldn't be reading the article. I'm shocked at it too, but Wikipedia has truly never ceased to amaze me. I join the group of [citation needed] force, as I too feel that challenged content must be cited without question; at least if it wants to be a Featured Article. Domiy (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domiy, please stop trolling FARs. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is plagued with MoS issues, unsourced statements, and a seemingly poor use of scholarly works to reference this article. Also, this article has a number of image copyright issues. Some of the images are tagged as public domain, but there's no evidence that the images meet India or Pakistan copyright law. Furthermore, there's no documentation of whether some of the images were taken in India or Pakistan, so it's quite possible that the incorrect PD tags are being used. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IND/PAK/UK copyright laws are different and we don't know the location of many of these pics or when theyr were *published*, per the law. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and stability (1e). Marskell (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Per comments made above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), Domiy (talk · contribs), and Nishkid64 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove My concerns have not been addressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shame. Doesn't seem like it's too far away, but no work going on. Closing. Marskell (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.