Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Fire of London/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Great Fire of London: delete |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*'''Close''' - The rationale suggests the nominator hasn't read the FAC or the article in any detail as both explain how the citations work. Slavishly adding {{tl|cite}} at the end of every sentence isn't the mark of our best work. [[User:Yomangan/sig|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangan|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Close''' - The rationale suggests the nominator hasn't read the FAC or the article in any detail as both explain how the citations work. Slavishly adding {{tl|cite}} at the end of every sentence isn't the mark of our best work. [[User:Yomangan/sig|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000ee">Yomangani</span>]][[User_talk:Yomangan|<sup>talk</sup>]] 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Close''' per Yomangani. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Close''' per Yomangani. [[User:Giano II|Giano]] ([[User talk:Giano II|talk]]) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - no infobox. Anyway, Bloodworth was right: a woman could have pissed it out, if only one with a prodigiously large bladder had been located in time. -- [[User:Disinfoboxman|Disinfoboxman]] ([[User talk:Disinfoboxman|talk]]) 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:49, 10 November 2008
I believe this article no longer meets WP:FACR 1c and 2c. Many sections and subsections such as Tuesday and Wednesday in the Development of the fire section lack many citations. The Aftermath section has several non-referenced paragraphs. Thoughts and opinions please. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment as of this revision the sections noted as being of particular concern have footnotes (nos 32, 43, 44 and 53) which note that all material in these secitons is from the single source indicated, unless there's another footnote. Other than vandalism, the content of this article has been very stable across the period I've been watching it, which must be 18 months or more. I don't have access to the sources indicated, but if someone did it would be a relatively straightforward job to maybe give a slightly more specific page range for each paragraph. David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close - The rationale suggests the nominator hasn't read the FAC or the article in any detail as both explain how the citations work. Slavishly adding {{cite}} at the end of every sentence isn't the mark of our best work. Yomanganitalk 10:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close per Yomangani. Giano (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no infobox. Anyway, Bloodworth was right: a woman could have pissed it out, if only one with a prodigiously large bladder had been located in time. -- Disinfoboxman (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)