Wikipedia:Featured article review/T-34/archive2


 * 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 Dana boomer 12:39, 7 September 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WikiProject Ukraine, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Russia

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to the standard expected of FAs. Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria: It is—  (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;  It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—  (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) —see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.  Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.</li>
 * The information on the tank's design is severely lacking, totalling as it does four completely broken up paragraphs.
 * Several chunks are completely unreferenced, including the last line of the "Background" section, an entire paragraph of "establishing initial production" and almost the entirety of "Design (T-34 Model 1941)".
 * Citations are completely and utterly inconsistent, ranging from the Harvard style to a divided bibliography-and-citations type. Many facts appear in the lead, but not in the text of the article proper.
 * Images, rather than alternating, go down almost unbroken in a gallery on the right-hand side of the page. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Delegate note - As there was no prior notification on the talk page of the possibility of a FAR, this review is being placed on hold. I have made the notification and will wait until editors have been given time to respond. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delegate note - after hold and talk page notification, the nominator has indicated he still has concerns requiring an FAR. Therefore, the nomination is active as of this time stamp. 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Provisional delist. I think on balance, although the article author(s) have done a good job, there are substantial issues that will require some major research and expansion to address. There seem to be some questions about Zaloga's reliability as a source on the talk page; this is not a minor issue and could result in large sections of the article needing to be re-sourced. The image and citation formatting are less significant because they're relatively quick and easy to fix, but in all my feeling is that there's probably more work required than is realistically achievable over the duration of an FAR. EyeSerene talk 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * 1c At a glance I have concerns over the "high-quality" of some sources; namely:
 * http://www.wwiivehicles.com/
 * http://www.achtungpanzer.com/
 * http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/
 * http://www.taphilo.com/
 * http://www.lonesentry.com/
 * Brad (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and image compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Delist. It has been weeks since this review and yet no coordinated repair effort has started. I counted, and tagged, over 40 places where citations should be in place; that alone would disqualify this article from being a GA, let alone FA class. If nothing happens to substancially improve this article, it shouldn't keep its listing as "one of the best works on Wikipedia" because that doesn't appear to be the case here. Kyteto (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with most of those tags - many of them are for single sentences which aren't critical, and could simply be removed. ( Hohum  @ ) 12:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Delist Major 1c problems and fails MOS Images. As stated above there is no effort underway to address any issues. Brad (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


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