Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oxyrhynchus/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 10:24, 28 May 2007.
Review commentary
[edit]- Messages left by LuciferMorgan at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Marskell 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this article for FA review because it appears not to meet the current standards for Featured Articles (it was promoted in December of 2003). I noted the following problems:
- Lack of cited sources. The article has only 13 references, nearly all of which are concentrated in the last section. Two of the references - link 1 and link 6 - are nonfunctional.
- Formatting of cited sources is nonstandard; most are links like this [1].
- Two of the pictures (the photographs of Hunt and Grenfell) have deprecated tags.
- The lead is short.
Chubbles 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An immediate issue -- and I'm no expert, but this seems crystal clear -- is that Image:Oxyrhynchus.jpg is derived from Google Maps, but claims to be a public domain image. It is not. It is a derivative work of copyrighted satellite imagery licensed to Google, whose terms of service don't seem to allow such uses: You may not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in whole or in part.. This seems to have only been added recently, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced that image with the one that was there before it was uploaded; I tagged it as a possible copyvio and notified the creator. Chubbles 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator has removed the tag and restored the image, and he believes the image is now properly sourced; I am not so sure... I still have it listed at copyvio problems/Apr 26th. Chubbles 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the image in question. --Spike Wilbury 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with image that was there before Google Maps image was added. Chubbles 21:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have deleted the image in question. --Spike Wilbury 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator has removed the tag and restored the image, and he believes the image is now properly sourced; I am not so sure... I still have it listed at copyvio problems/Apr 26th. Chubbles 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced that image with the one that was there before it was uploaded; I tagged it as a possible copyvio and notified the creator. Chubbles 23:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are sufficiency and formatting of references (1c), images (3), LEAD (2a). Marskell 05:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for all of the above. Trebor 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong retain and add {{1911}}, as the source of the unfootnoted sections of the article. Footnote-counting should be banned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't so much the fact that there was a small number of footnotes that troubled me; rather, it was the fact that so many entire sections of the article were completely unsourced. Chubbles 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Hold, per Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Remove, inadequate lead, largely uncited, unformatted references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Sandy's reasoning. LuciferMorgan 13:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Sandy. Someone's gotta do some work on it to retain that star .... Tony 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm very slowly working on a copy as time permits, but it might take a while to sort out. I don't see how the EB 1911 would cover the uncited material which extends beyond 1911, but I think overall the article is comprehensive and well-written (Tony can no doubt point out a few things, but it is clear and readable). It just needs a bit of referencing adding (which doesn't necessarily mean inlines) and some formatting. I'll bring it back to FAC shortly if it is removed as I don't see any problem getting it through once it is tidied up. Yomanganitalk 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.