Wikipedia:Featured article review/William Nelson Page/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:Joelr31 00:49, 11 November 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notifications to Vaoverland, WP Trains, WP Virginia, WP Bio, WP West Virginia.

A 2004 promotion, this article needs a tuneup. The WP:LEAD is in need of some serious trimming (as long as many articles), there is an External link farm, there are one-sentence sections, citations are unformatted and lacking, image layout needs attention to comply with WP:ACCESS and WP:MOS, and there is a lot of WP:MOS basic cleanup needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will begin working immediately on each of these items. Collaboration and/or constructive suggestions would be welcomed. Vaoverland (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across this while using the reflinks tool. I made some changes that I think address some of the MOS/Layout issues as well as fixing refs. Prince of Canadat 06:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead (2a), MoS (2), citation formatting (2c). Marskell (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove. Agree with above concerns raised by, most of which have not been addressed since the WP:FAR started. Cirt (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove weight imbalance on lead, lack of references. 1c.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Vaoverland, hopefully you'll find the following comments helpful:
 * I agree with YellowMonkey that the lead is too long. It should be a fair summary of the article, rather than an article in itself!
 * The table of contents is too long—it should be shrunk down by merging short sections.
 * There are two occurrences of "weasel words". These phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view:
 * which would allegedly result
 * arguably a crowning lifetime achievement
 * More inline citations would strengthen the article, allowing readers to directly track what information comes from which source.
 * There are some redundancies and imprecise quantities that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise: "some", "several", etc. Vague terms of size are often unnecessary, or introduce an appearance of ambiguity when precise numbers can give precision instead. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * There are too many external links; these should be trimmed. Also, cut the dead links.
 * Minor point: I would expand the following contractions to make the writing style more formal:
 * Page didn't give up
 * who wasn't about.
 * The list of books is very impressive, and it must be disheartening to be told that this is no longer FA after such a lot of work has gone into it. I would say that at present the article doesn't meet the current standard of an FA, but that does not mean that it is a bad article. In fact, I wouldn't consider myself qualified to comment directly on the content. I am merely saying that it unfortunately does not meet the present criteria, which are currently interpreted to mean that inline citations are required largely throughout. DrKiernan (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.