Wikipedia:Featured article review/All your base are belong to us

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All your base are belong to us[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

I'd love to see a featured article on this subject, but this one isn't it. Passed FAC in February 2004 in a lightly trafficked nomination. FA criteria not met: 1) Unreferenced; 2) Probably original research; 3) No fair use rationale on images; 4) Not well structured (the article is about 25% prose and 75% meandering, disorganized lists). Again, I'm reluctant to do this, but the article doesn't seem to stack up to today's FA standards. BrianSmithson 11:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Remove—I agree with Brian, except that I'm not fussed if it never becomes a FA. Also slightly uncomfortable about parading something that arises from non-natives' foibles in their use of English. Tony 12:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • REMOVE. This is the worst example of a feature article I think I have ever seen. Even after rereading the lead several times the subject is still a mystery to me--someone who doesn't already know what the subject is about wouldn't be able to understand it. The rest of the article isn't much better. I also agree that it is original research and has too many lists.--Alabamaboy 13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove; I'm not sure that the tiny little article that was originally FA'd [1] wasn't better than what's there now, but in either case, obviously neither are an FA today. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove, clearly has major problems. It does meet the first of the FA criteria though, so it would be nice to see as a featured article again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Remove - but dont forget when it originally passed references were not a requirement.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 00:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic remove. Poorly structured with a low ratio of information to silliness. Don't let the glory of FA status become diluted. Cheers. -matt 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article does show some special characteristics. Deryck C. 13:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove Poorly done list. Could be a nice article, but isn't. InvictaHOG 14:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Remove per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 06:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)