Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abu Musab al-Zarqawi/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 Nikkimaria 18:07, 20 June 2011 [1].

---

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Review commentary

Notified: Mercenary2k, WP Biography, WP Iraq, WP Terrorism

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in 2006 and hasn't been reviewed since, and a lack of maintenance has led to a reduction in article quality. Issues:

• There are 31 dead links, leading to a significant amount of information being essentially unreferenced.
• What makes Ref 152 ("Zarqawi Scheduled for Martyrdom".) a reliable source? It's a wargaming website. All refs should be checked for reliability - I'm not doing this now because I'm assuming some will be replaced and numbers will move around as the dead links are fixed and unreferenced information is referenced.
• The last two paragraphs of the Post-Zarqawi Iraq environment section are completely unreferenced. I'm also not sure how relevant all of this information is, since little of it relates directly to Zarqawi. Could/Should probably be summarized in much less detail.
• There are several other tag ends of paragraphs that contain opinion and conjecture that are not sourced.
• At over 9,100 words, this article is quickly approaching the maximum size recommended by WP:SIZE. The article should be reviewed closely for areas that could be better summarized, or, as in the section mentioned above, where information not actually related to Zarqawi could be cut.
• There are a lot of quotes in this article, both in block form and in-line. The prose would likely read more smoothly if some of these quotes were integrated into the prose of the article.

Overall, the dead links, unreliable sources and unreferenced information make this article of sub-FA quality, and a lack of work over the past few months (since a work-needed notification) has necessitated this review. Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section focus mainly on sourcing, although weight, length and MOS compliance were also mentioned. Dana boomer (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Delist Appears that absolutely nothing has been done toward addressing the issues outlined above. Brad (talk) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Delist - Nothing has been done to address my concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delist. Concerns above not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 06:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delist' - Per above. GamerPro64 20:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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