Wikipedia:Featured article review/Voynich manuscript/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 09:26, 28 March 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified Jorge Stolfi, Susurrus, Syzygy‎, Matt Crypto‎, WikiProject Writing systems, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Books, and WikiProject Constructed languages


 * Concerns with 1C, 1B, and 2C "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", as there is only 16. Certain statements have been tagged with Citation Needed. Also, the article was granted FA status almost 4 years ago before GA status was given. I think a good new look on the article to reestablish that it is up snuff would be helpful to all involved. Zidel333 (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment From at quick glance — Massive amounts of white space in the illustrations section, could that be changed somehow? And a large external linkfarm, that need to be pruned. --Peter Andersen (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Voynich Manuscript is quite an intriguing subject. It would be a shame if the article was to be demoted from FA status. I will try working on getting citations and addressing all reference issues. Also, I have removed some of the images in the illustration section. Hopefully, it looks a little better now. I will move the removed images to other sections of the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you guys think of restructuring the external links section? I once had them grouped according to primary sources, general information, specific theories etc., but somebody reverted it. I'm not sure if it is against WP policies to group the external links, but if doing so is okay, I would reconstruct the link categories. --Syzygy (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not; but one FA reviewer has strong, if solitary, opinions on the subject. To my mind, classified external links are better than a hodgepodge.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also prefer a more organized EL section. I'm going to start referencing soon. I just need to pick up the books from the library. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I gave it a shot. And worked a little on the Hoax-section. --Syzygy (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a most interesting article and one that I knew zero about. I came here via a posting on the reliable sources noticeboard, which questions the reliability of one of the sources in the article.  Having looked a bit closer, I think that this is not the only problem with reliable sources on this article.  As noted above, there are very few inline citations, which I gather were not required in the era when this article was promoted.  But even so, I am significantly concerned by some of the inline references that there are, which seem to be to websites unlikely to be considered reliable.e.g. , , http://www.voynich.nu/index.html,  ,.
 * The reference list itself looks reasonably reliable based on a quick scan. Slp1 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove 1c. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove 1c.  Blnguyen  ( vote in the photo straw poll ) 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove I remain concerned about use of unreliable sources here, and indeed in the last week or so two more have appeared. . So, yes, 1c. --Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.