Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:03, 5 January 2010 [1].

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006

Featured article review/Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006/archive1

Notified: Whouk, Bondegezou, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it is far from meeting citation standards expected for a featured article today. Whole sections have a sparse number of citations, including "From close of nominations to end of voting", and "Opening of the campaign" (the longest prose section of the main body) has no citations at all. The other parts of the featured article criteria seem, to me, to still be met. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images Licensing OK, but alt text required per WP:ALT. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No significant work undertaken to address problems. HonouraryMix (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, negligible changes since the FAR was initiated, significant issues still in evidence (see the "See also" in the lead alone!), nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, almost no work completed on the issues listed in the FAR. Large swaths of the article still unreferenced, web references missing publishers and access dates. Odd section titles "The rules of the contest"? Quite a few dead links too. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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