Wikipedia:Featured article review/Peterborough Chronicle/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 05:14, 8 July 2009.

Review commentary

 * Wikiprojects notified.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Fails 1c.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have notified Geogre, a primary contributor, and will be watching this too to see if I can help. Mike Christie (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to look in on this shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From comments on Geogre's talk page, he feels it meets 1c, so I'm not going to stick my nose into something so fraught with chances of just causing drama. I've got enough work to work on, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Fails 1c? You mean it is not well-researched? If so, a pointer to where you think the research is lacking would be helpful for anybody who intends to work on it. Or is there a specific part of criterion 1c you believe it fails? Yomangani talk 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fairly sure he is refering to the fact that the article has only one inline citation and not that many references overall. Spiesr (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be (actually it has quite a few inline citations, although only one footnote), but I was hoping that YellowMonkey would add more than a two word rationale for what is essentially a request to delist some people's hard work. Yomangani talk 23:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Current feature article standards essentially require every paragraph in an article the have multiple specific citations. Usally in the standard of footnotes like this . Modern featured articles like this one have extensive lists of citations in a refernces or notes section. This article contains only 1 item in its notes section. And while the article does have a few of citations of a different formatting in the text, which should look like this (Smith 2007, p. 1), there are not nearly enough of these for the article to pass criteria 1c and maintain its featured status. Spiesr (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can't dig up some sources and add some citations. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be a good start to reformat the in-line citations to harvnb template format, so they are clickable and lead to the appropriate reference in the references section. I am happy to do this, though I won't be able to insert the page numbers. I wouldn't insist on using footnotes at this time, given that Geogre deliberately used another system; the harvnb citations can easily be changed to footnotes later on if needed. Having the refs show as hyperlinks will also make it more apparent how much of the content is cited. Sound like a good idea?  JN 466  09:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Although there's a couple of the harvard links I can't get to work; most jump down to the appropriate reference, but a couple don't.  JN 466  21:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist, per FA criteria concern cited above by and . Cirt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delist per Cirt. Not enough citations. FAR has been open for several weeks.  JN 466  15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me note that very view of the sources you'd expect to see used have been used for this article. I have to say I don't think Wikipedia should have FAs for historical sources (chronicles, annals, and so on), that don't use such sources. As a result of this problem, the article comments meagerly on important critical issues, little about diplomatic, composition, "textual archaeology", and so on. It's a good article, don't get me wrong, but we expert more comprehensiveness from FAs these days. The required rewrite is so massive that it has to be delisted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.