Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Medieval literature

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

Medieval literature[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article.

Reasons cited from Wikipedia:What is a featured article?.. 2b) "comprehensive" it is not comprehensive, 1000+ years of European literature is extensive; many of the sub-articles have not even been created yet (see the red-links in the "see also" section). The sub-articles that exist should be part of the narrative of the article (in summary form), as they are the primary subject of the article. 2c) "factually accurate" .. no references or footnotes. 3a) "lead section" .. a single weak paragraph 4) few images, the graph is questionable (created as original research by a wikipedian). -- Stbalbach 05:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Remove Achieved FA in late 2003/early 2004 on the basis of nomination and a single support vote: it may have been among Wikipedia's best articles then but it wouldn't qualify for GA now. No references, list-heavy, and without the lists rather short. Durova 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Half or the article is a giant list and there are no references - what more needs to be said?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Remove Remove!.Good God--this article should be removed immediately. Absolutely not up to FA standards. In addition, when it was nominated back in early 2004, it only received ONE vote of support (see Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Medieval_literature)--Alabamaboy 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. While it is a good article, it is definitely not up to featured article standards. Zreeon 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. It doesn't seem comprehensive and it's not referenced. Definitely not a featured article. Mikker (...) 02:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove -- ALoan (Talk) 09:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Lacks references and the last half of the article is dominated by long lists. The article also does not appear to be complete, and should at the very least have some information on the differences in literature between the early, high, and late medieval periods. --Allen3 talk 14:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. The article is incomplete. To be removed. And that's that. --62.84.15.238 17:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - It's obvious this article got nominated poorly, and it fits barely any of the FA criteria. Schizmatic 23:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Good catch. --DanielNuyu 02:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Fails to be comprehensive on the subject. Besselfunctions 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, unreferenced, incomplete. --Terence Ong 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)