Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sargon of Akkad/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 21:24, 6 January 2012 [1].
Sargon of Akkad[edit]
Review commentary[edit]
Sargon of Akkad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Briangotts, Til Eulenspiegel, Dbachmann, Dougweller, WikiProject Ancient Near East, WikiProject Iraq
FA since 2007. I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3 (see here for details). After I placed the talk page note I did some significant work on the refs and deleted some really blatant nonsense, but there was no follow-up by other editors. However, in terms of editing and especially content this article is still far from FA-status.Zoeperkoe (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance, some bits look a bit odd. Nicholas Postgate's name is spelt incorrectly in the bibliography for a start; some volumes like Barton are referenced, but not in the bibliography; the style on the bibliography is rather out of kilter. Some information mentioned in the lead (e.g. the archaeology of the capital) doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main, etc. Needs a bit of TLC. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, MOS, sourcing, and media. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist None of the issues have been seriously addressed over the past weeks and it now even has a wp:npov tag.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I have little knowledge of the subject matter but agree with Zoeperkoe's assessment of its status. The only thing I could add is that the article seems a bit {{quotefarm}}ish. Brad (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.