Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chemical warfare/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 Gimmetrow 00:41, 22 March 2009 [1].

Chemical warfare

Review commentary

Notified: ClockworkSoul, Rmhermen, WP:MILHIST, WP:CHEMISTRY, WP:MCB, WP:MED (completed).

This article was promoted in 2005, and it's not up to current FA standards. Large swaths of it containing non-obvious information lack inline citations. Based on my experience with other FAs, this article would require considerable work to pass FA today. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: I'm not trying to belittle other people's hard work. I hope that ClockworkSoul, now that he hopefully got past his PhD qual. exams, can blow off some steam with his favorite topic(s). :) Xasodfuih (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I was the primary author way back in 2005 responsible for getting this to FA status, I actually agree that the article falls seriously short of satisfying current FA standards. Looking it over again though, it doesn't seem that it will require too much work to get it back up there. I'm still short on time, but I'll see what I can do. – Clockwork Soul 15:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that, while this is an excellent article in other respects, there are far too many entire sections without references. I'll see if I can find some time to add a few. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is quite long: 52Kb of prose without including the bullet lists, quotations, or the large table (prosetool doesn't count those as prose). Summarizing some of text might result in fewer citations that need to be added. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mc-1 gas bomb.png doesn't have an original source. I've requested that the license of File:AOSpare-Dressing the Wounded during a Gas Attack 1918.jpg be checked. DrKiernan (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:LEAD, having a one sentence lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead, and images. Joelito (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Citations are absent in a significant portion of this article, and the lede is still ~~one sentence~~ too short (just checked again [2]). Promises to work on this article have not materialized in any significant improvement since this FAR started. Sniff, sniff. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Lede is a problem, and tons of referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There seem to be NPOV problems near the end as well, apart from the referencing and the lede! Physchim62 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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