Wikipedia:Featured article review/Adam Clayton Powell, Jr./archive1

Article is still a featured article.

Not comprehensive. Became a FA in January 2004. Neutrality^talk 19:05, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Remove. No lead section (any for that matter) and no references. - Taxman 20:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Remove. I find it hard to believe this became a featured article in the first place. Indrian 20:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
- In the past we used to care about content and not that much else. Now content is only a tiny part of getting an article feaured [added by Pcb21| ]
~~Remove~~ Neutral - actually one of the March 2004 featured articles (previously Brilliant Prose, presumably), so won't have gone through the now-rigorous FAC process. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Remove not even any sectioning, no discernable lead. Mgm|^(talk) 07:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Remove Everyking 08:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I put in the sections (and thereby created a lead section) to solve the trivial problems (why did none of you who bothered to write here, bother to do that?!). However it still leaves Neutrality's important question about comprehensiveness. Is anyone able to say whether it is comprehensive or not? Pcb21| Pete 08:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- I added some further reading in lieu of knowing what references were actually used. Further I noticed that the none of the objectors had contacted the original author (still an active wikipedian) to comment on the issues, so I did so. Pcb21| Pete 09:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Well done - at least these nominations are triggering improvements to the articles, which is clearly a good thing. Some of the objectors (viz. me) have been trying to deal with the (I have to say, entirely reasonable) objections - see Not The Nine O'Clock News below - but I know nothing about this chap, although I still suspect that this article is not as comprehensive as it could be. Hopefully, the original contributor will have the article, or this page, on his watchlist. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep. A very good article on a very important political figure. Can anyone suggest a good reason why you would remove this article from featured status? This article is very comprehensive - covering everything? I couldn't say - ad shouldn't be removed just because someone thinks that the general consensus of what is a good article has changed. --Harro5 09:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Pete's version. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep following Pete's work. This is a well written article, and one we should be proud of. I second the comment made by Harro5 above, I don't think well written articles like this should be listed here just because they do not conform with current featured article standards. I would not expect someone to be de-adminned, or have to go through RfA again, just because they were elected when standards were, arguably, lower. Rje 00:53, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. These little objections about lead sections, extra references, images, etc.,. should stop being used as de-feature fodder. If the prose and scope of an article is strong (as it is here), go in and do the modernizing touchup changes yourself. Half the time it will take you barely more effort than starting and defending a nom on this page. JDG 22:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)