Wikipedia:Featured article review/World War I/archive1

World War I

 * Article is still a featured article.

No references. 119 19:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As has been argued on the talk pages ad nasuem, there is no consensus about how to retroactively apply that criteria. &rarr;Raul654 19:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's great, FA is then a shiny badge of "our best work" which the reader can have no confidence in. 119 00:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your arguement is bull. To put it simply - the references criteria was added recently - about 2 months ago. It's unfair to the authors to defeature 200 or so articles based on criteria that didn't exist at the time they were written. &rarr;Raul654 02:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * When the definition of a Featured Article changes, articles that do not meet that definition cannot logically be considered Featured Articles, no matter what their former status was. To do so makes the distinction between articles that are and aren't Featured-quality useless. 119 02:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Raul, IMHO, being an FA or not an FA, is about the article not the authors. Paul August &#9742; 05:16, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ambi 01:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. (There are other problems as well; it is too long and contains huge chunks of unwikified text.) I strongly agree with 119's reply above. Featured status should be a distinction of quality, not a commendation for effort (though the two are often related). If 200 articles are no longer up to the standards, that means they should cease to be featured articles. If anything, that should give people incentive to improve them. Fredrik | talk 12:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to take the principalled stand here and vote remove. The World War I article is an example of one that critically needs references. As a point of fact, Raul654, the references requirement was added on Sept 11, 2004, or nearly five months ago.  That is more than long enough. If we don't make a stand somewhere it will never happen.  Take the pain now for a much greater long term gain for the project. Lets help eliminate Wikipedia's single greatest weakness. - Taxman 15:19, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove, concur with Taxman's eloquent words. Neutralitytalk 04:59, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  When we started to require references, it was clearly said and understood that the requirement would not be retroactive.   If we change our minds on that, we need to do so explicitly.  This is not the place. Mark1 06:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Mark and Raul. Filiocht 08:27, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Great article. &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  01:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. The article is very poorly written.  The content is there, but its just painful to read.  Its very much quantity over quality.  Try reading the "Ludendorff offensives of 1918" section.  You will see what I mean. --Benna 07:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove. I've worked on this article some over time (mostly proofreading other people's additions), and I'll say that, references aside, the article is just not in very good shape. It needs some fairly extensive work summarizing and splitting off detail into subarticles as well as some intelligent copyediting. Everyking 11:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)