Misplaced Pages:Featured article review: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:00, 23 January 2009 editJoelr31 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,225 editsm closing Chrono Trigger as kept....French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools as removed← Previous edit		Revision as of 03:07, 23 January 2009 edit undoJoelr31 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users12,225 editsm closing Kingdom of Mysore....no consensus was achieved for removalNext edit →
Line 24:		Line 24:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Hubble Deep Field}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Hubble Deep Field}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Lazare Ponticelli}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Lazare Ponticelli}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Kingdom of Mysore}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Indian Railways}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Indian Railways}}

Revision as of 03:07, 23 January 2009

Reviewing featured articles Shortcuts

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include
- main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools),
- the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and
- any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified).
The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Joelr31 22:29, 4 April 2009 .

Dhaka

Review commentary

WikiProjects notified.

Fails 1c, and also, ~~there is a lack of an etymology section~~. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A few parts of the article is lacking some sources for verifiability, which is quite evident, so I think that needs to be worked on the most, but overall I think the article is well written, stable and consistent. Mohsin (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Question to Bl/YellowMonkey: Why is the "lack of an etymology section" a ground for FAR? Can you please cite the Featured article criteria related to this? As far as I can see, the etymology of the name Dhaka is already present in the 3rd sentence of the "History" section. --Ragib (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed that. Struck. I wouldn't have sent it to FAR but for the 1c. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I support delisting as FA for not meeting 1c criteria. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:V has been addressed, apart from one or two loose ends. Aditya 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it still fail 1c? Aditya 02:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image problems

File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg Claim that OneGuy is the author is not substantiated by the file history. OneGuy claimed that the image was public domain, but did not provide a source or author.
~~File:Pohela boishakh 2.jpg Copyright holder is "Niloy" but the uploader ("Ragib") says "I, the copyright holder..."~~
~~File:Riksha.jpg Permission too vague.~~
~~File:Bmbdu.jpg Photograph "by Sabrina", who is not the uploader, but the uploader claims copyright: "I, the copyright holder...".~~ DrKiernan (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg - OneGuy says he has released it as follows "OneGuy grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". I think from this statement, it is apparent that he is the author of the image.
File:Pohela boishakh 2.jpg - fixed.
File:Bmbdu.jpg - fixed.
File:Riksha.jpg - doesn't look vague to me, but I have a lot of replacement photos of the same locations, added under GFDL. So, I'll replace it. --Ragib (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced that the images are fixed. There's no proof that the owners of the images have released them. For example, OneGuy doesn't say that he has released Bayt al Mukarram.jpg. Someone else wrote that after it was pointed out that there was no source given . DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other uploaders, but among the above, I had uploaded File:Pohela boishakh 2.jpg, after obtaining written permission from the photo author (Niloy). If you want, I can forward you his email where he gave me permission to upload the photos under CC-by-sa. As for the rest of the photos, I will replace them later today with GFDL licensed (and OTRS checked) photos from commons. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced File:Riksha.jpg and File:Bmbdu.jpg with two images with no confusion about licensing. I am looking for replacements for the Mosque image. As for the Pohela Boishakh image, I once again would state that the photographer has donated the photo to Misplaced Pages, and I have his emailed statement about that, which I can share with anyone on request. Or you can contact the photographer (email address listed at the photo page) directly. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The replacements look good. I'm happy to accept your word for the Pohela Boishakh image. DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I emailed the author of the Pohela Boishakh photo, and he has sent me an email explicitly releasing it under CC-by-sa. I've forwarded it to OTRS, so they'll be updating the page soon. --Ragib (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After further review of the photos File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg , I do not see any problem with the photo's licensing. Oneguy uploaded it to en wiki in 2004 with the PD tag (see file history). So, I do not really see any basis for your objection. The link you provided is due to the botched "move to commons", when the person doing the move failed to copy the PD tag from the en wiki version of the image. I request you to look into the history of the file's deleted page in en wiki, which clearly shows Oneguy uploaded it there with a PD tag. --Ragib (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I already did. That was the first thing I looked at! The PD tag just says that OneGuy claimed it was public domain (either because it was released by the copyright holder, the copyright had expired or it was ineligible for copyright), but there is no proof that it is. I do not see anywhere that OneGuy has explicitly said: "I took this image, and it is mine." DrKiernan (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything but one piece of fact has been appropriately cited. What is the concern then? That piece can be removed in a jiffy anyways. Aditya 17:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some MOS cleanup is needed, I am fixing as much as I can. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think the article fails criterion 3 because the file history of File:Bayt al Mukarram.jpg does not support the contention that the original uploader was the copyright holder. That is an assumption at best. There is no proof that the image is public domain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Image replaced. Aditya 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Dabs and Dead links need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Firstly, the article contains statements which are not verifiable. For example, in the lead it says Dhaka has the highest literacy rate, but the source given does not confirm this, and a source given elsewhere in the article shows other places in Bangladesh with higher rates. Besides which the lead originally gave a figure which did not appear in the source cited, which I have corrected. All figures and statements in the article need to be checked against the source, and corrected if necessary. Secondly, the prose needs work; examples in the lead included "spelled" (now changed to "spelt"), and include "it is nonetheless a fighting metropolitan city", where the use of "fighting" is idiosyncratic. DrKiernan (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the claim about the literacy rate at the beginning. The other example is already fixed by someone else. What other references are needed? If you can point them out either here or at the article with cn tags, I can fix those. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've persuaded me to strike my remove. However, there are still peacock terms in the "Education" section~~, in the "Sports" section, and four dead links.~~ DrKiernan (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

~~My last points are still not addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Added citations for the sports section, removed one unreferenced statement from there. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Delist Prose and referencing issues remain. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please point out the referencing issue you are referring to? If you point them out, we can fix it, but just saying there are issues does not help. Please point out the particular pieces that need references. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Nishkid64, can you please point to the exact referencing and prose issues? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started adding {{fact}} tags. I request that you use high-quality sources, as per FA criterion 1(c). Some of these sources do not seem entirely appropriate: e.g. ref. 14 " The Feminist Review Collective" (by the way, this is a journal article, not a book). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, could you ensure uniformity in the article's referencing? I noticed a few discrepancies during my runthrough of the history section. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist incomplete and irregular citations, odd prose. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be specific about which citation you are talking about and what prose you found odd? Things can be fixed if you tell us what to fix. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, YellowMonkey, can you please point to the exact citation and prose issues? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Delist, poor/incomplete sourcing. Cirt (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please be specific about which citation you are talking about? Almost all CN tags have been fixed with citations, so what/where do you find incomplete sourcing?Things can be fixed if you tell us what to fix. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Cirt, can you please point to the exact citation issues you found poor/incomplete? We can fix it if you point it out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless editors above can provide specific examples of poor prose or sourcing, I'm probably going to be a keep. I don't think the one remaining fact tag is particularly concerning, as the article on the 1970 Bhola cyclone seems to agree with what is claimed and lists reliable sources. Any concerns over the formatting of citations is very minor, and not worth demoting over in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, be a little more specific. Fixing is a way better option than lazily delisting an article. The article is being worked on, and every specific problem identified has been fixed. Is that so bad? Aditya 16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan and Aditya Kabir. All fly-by comments will not be accepted. "Votes" must be supported with evidence. Joelito (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup needed; there are inconsistent date formats throughout. The article text uses Month day, year, but the citations have a mix of ISO dates and day month year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made all dates in the references ISO format. All dates in the article text are MDY. DrKiernan (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

~~Regretful delist'~~ per sourcing problems mentioned above. Since examples have been requested, listing three below. Durova 16:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Throughout the 1950s and '60s, Dhaka remained a hotbed of political activity, and the demands for autonomy for the Bengali population gradually gained momentum. Uncited assertion at the end of a paragraph. In fact, the entire paragraph has only one citation at the previous sentence. Looked it up because the source was online and unfamiliar. The bnet.com about page begins with the slogan "The Go-to Place for Management" and continues At BNET, managers find practical, trusted resources for the business challenges they face every day and effective techniques for moving their companies and careers forward. Perhaps not unreliable, but a bit thin to be using as a sole reference for that much information.

Feminist Review cited as the source, should be reliable. Aditya 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The 1970 Bhola cyclone devastated much of the region, killing an estimated 500,000 people. More than half the city of Dhaka was flooded and millions of people marooned. Was tagged with a request for citation when I encountered it.

Book published by Centre for Science & Techonlogy of the Non-Aligned and other Developing Countries cited as the source. Should work. Aditya 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The annual per capita income of Dhaka is estimated at $500, with 48% of households living below the poverty line, including a large segment of the population coming from the villages in search of employment, with many surviving on less than $10 a day. It might not come as a surprise that a substantial portion of the population is very poor, but one normally finds a citation for an amount as specific as "less than $10 a day."

Book published by International Labour Organisation, Asian Employment Programme cited as the source. Should be good. Aditya 16:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The problems that you have reported have been fixed. The BNET article that you have mentioned is highly reliable because BNET posted a scholarly article that was published by Inroads Journal (Issue: 11 Page: 87) on January 1, 2002. Here some other other sites (that you may consider reliable) that have the same article. , and . You do not need multiple sources for one paragraph if one reliable source covers the whole paragrapgh. The death toll of 1970 Bhola cyclone has been cited but the Bhola cyclone's effect on Dhaka was removed because Bhola cyclone's effect was not out of the ordinary. Almost every two years, half of Dhaka get flooded and millions of people get marooned. The statement "less than $10 a day" was removed because it was not necessary due to the fact the article mentions the avaerge annual income of Dhaka residents and percentage of households living under poverty. Please let me know if you find anything else wrong with the article. I believe the article is well written and does deserve the FA status. Thank YouTarikur (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Placement of a citation before the end of a paragraph strongly implies that the following sentences are not cited. What some of our most prolific FA writers have been doing the last year or so is to cite every sentence individually. Although it looks overdone from a wiki perspective, it does help to stabilize an article by eliminating ambiguity about sourcing. Durova 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree to Tarikur's argument either, and therefore have tried to provide appropriate sources for all three claims challenged. If there are more, please, post here, and there is a possibility that further problems will be mitigated as well. Aditya 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep the article is very well written compared to many other FA status articles that are about cities. As one can see, nearly every sentence is cited. I went through all the the citations, all of them are from highly reliable sources (all of them are either primary or secondary sources) and correctly reflect the cited material. Tarikur (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Primary sources should only be used with caution, per WP:PRIMARY. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 06:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Question Are there anymore specific problems left? Please, if any, let them be known. Aditya 07:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tarikur and I have put appropriate sources to the latest round of citation requests. Is there anything left to do? Please refer to specifics, as opposed to fly-by general comments that can't worked on. Aditya 00:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there still may be an issue regarding the quality of sources. I noticed a recent change to FA criterion 1(c), which now states that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". I'll have to read up on what "high-quality" actually means in this context and then check if Dhaka meets the criterion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be very nice. It would be nicer still if you could specify those sources that don't meet the quality standards. Aditya 02:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, 1c is violated. The history of Dhaka section uses a newspaper article (!) as a source. In fact a history book is not even used. There is a heavy use of tertiary sources (i.e., other encyclopedias); secondary sources are higher-quality. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A fresh line of review

Delist - the article just doesn't have the structural element or looks of a FA article if compared to other FA article such as Mumbai or Ahmedabad. A close up map of the city is definitely needed other than just a dot on a map, and a better quality picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.56.49 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not a vote, can you please be specific in your comments, and mention which of the FA criteria are not satisfied? "just doesn't have the structural element or looks of a FA article if compared to other FA article such as Mumbai or Ahmedabad" --- this just doesn't make sense ... what is the "structural element or looks of a FA article"? Which criteria mentions the "looks of a FA article"? Unless you be specific, this comment is not very helpful in improving the article. --Ragib (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

May be it's more like - "this article doesn't look like the article on Mumbai or Ahmedabad, therefore it can't be of good quality". Good reasoning there, since those two articles have been chosen by the community as the appex of city arty articles. Aditya 03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And, since we are discussing two great articles, lemme just pick a few gems from one of them - the Ahmedabad article:

"A military cantonment was established in 1824 and a municipal government in 1858. In 1864, a railway link between Ahmedabad and Mumbai (then Bombay) was established by the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway (BB&CI), making Ahmedabad an important junction in the traffic and trade between northern and southern India. Large numbers of people migrated from rural areas to work in textile mills, establishing a robust industry." - Strong use of peacock words without any citation.
The city administration and economic institutions were rendered functionless by the large masses of people who took to the streets in peaceful protests in the early 1930s, and again in 1942 during the Quit India movement. Following independence and the partition of India in 1947, the city was scarred by intense communal violence that broke out between Hindus and Muslims. - Strong presence of controversial material without any citation.
Ahmedabad is divided by the Sabarmati into two physically distinct eastern and western regions. The eastern bank of the river houses the old city, which includes the central town of Bhadra. This part of Ahmedabad is characterised by packed bazaars, the clustered and barricaded pol system of close clustered buildings, and numerous places of worship. - Detailed technical information without any citation.

Should I go on? Or should I just say other stuff exists is just a juvenile piece of argument? Aditya 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'd still have to say Delist, added some {{fact}} tags. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for point out the specific issues. We will fix these ASAP. --Ragib (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have addressed all the fact tags added by Cirt. Hopefully you'll reconsider your opinion? Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

~~Also agree with points raised by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)~~

Which particular point are you referring to? Can you be more specific than this? I have addressed all your fact tags, so what is the basis of your "delist" opinion? Things can be fixed if you point them out. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

~~See above comments by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)~~

Well, let me repeat this, *Which* of the several comments made in this FAR by Nishkid are you referring to? Won't hurt to be specific rather than just saying "I agree with points raised by Nishkid64". Referencing issues raised by Nishkid have been addressed by adding references. Nishkid is yet to clarify what his understanding of a high-quality source is (does Misplaced Pages even define a "high-quality" source?). So, please help us by clarifying what you mean by "I agree with Nishkid64", rather than repeating yourself. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) these questions. Also, the cite formatting issue. Cites are not uniformly formatted (I suggest WP:CIT), and some cites are lacking in information for WP:V. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't you yourself know which of Nishkid's issues you are referring to? It is very frustrating when you make a vague comment, and then refuse to be specific. Is it that hard for you to say specifically what you refer to? As for "some cites are lacking in information for WP:V", please point them out rather than saying "some cites". We are all writing an encyclopedia here, so I am very patiently fixing all the issues raised by the editors here. Please help us by making to the point comments and suggestions rather than vague remarks ("some", "many" etc.). Waiting for your specific comment pointing out the issues. Thanks in advance. --Ragib (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

~~Please do not make me repeat myself. I suggested using WP:CIT to flesh out the citations that are missing info, fields, author, date, publisher, work, etc. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)~~

Keep Great work by those involved, I see much improvement from this version prior to the FAR . Cirt (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Changing to keep per improvements. Many thanks to the editors who worked to keep this article featured. Durova 23:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Sumanch (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Seattle Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Zion National Park

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Kalimpong Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/2004 Atlantic hurricane season Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Hubble Deep Field Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Lazare Ponticelli Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Indian Railways

Category:

Misplaced Pages featured content