| Revision as of 18:41, 6 July 2007 editJersyko (talk | contribs)14,671 edits no.← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:47, 6 July 2007 edit undoFeddhicks (talk | contribs)200 edits copy editNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus. | *The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus. | ||
| *Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring. | *Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring. | ||
| *There are other contentious issues that no censensus has been reached. These can be found in the archives of the talk page. Essentially, many editors left wikipedia because a small group of editors kept insisting on doing it their way, even if it wasn't right. | |||
| ::Examples include the controversy (without commenting what the right thing to do about each controversy) about his Muslim education (or explaining that it was a controversy but there's no substance to allegations), police endorsement and opposition, Myspace and internet support, etc. | |||
| ;Images | ;Images | ||
Revision as of 18:47, 6 July 2007
previous FAR The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality anymore.
- Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable
- The article is not stable and subject to an ongoing edit war. While I AGF and do not accuse the editors of being campaign workers, the edits of some editors (not named to prevent accusations) is trying to hide information, place some information in small print, deleting relevant information, etc. Some editors give up but this doesn't mean there is a concensus.
- Article is prone to vandalism and reverts possibly due to frustration of the edit warring.
- There are other contentious issues that no censensus has been reached. These can be found in the archives of the talk page. Essentially, many editors left wikipedia because a small group of editors kept insisting on doing it their way, even if it wasn't right.
- Examples include the controversy (without commenting what the right thing to do about each controversy) about his Muslim education (or explaining that it was a controversy but there's no substance to allegations), police endorsement and opposition, Myspace and internet support, etc.
- Images
- Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive (subtle POV edit warring or not?)
- Length and focus
- Exceeds recommended article length but attempts to shorten have only led to edit warring.
Loss of featured article status is no big deal. Prime Minister Blair's article is very good and loss of FA status does diminish Blair's reputation. Feddhicks 18:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- The article has not changed to such a significant degree since its last FAR as to warrant further review. The edit warring noted above is being perpetuated by that editor. Since the only other substantial reason given for delisting that doesn't reference edit warring is "Poor image, makes his skin blotchy and unattractive", this article should obviously not be delisted. · jersyko talk 18:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)