Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/Angkor Wat/archive1: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review | Angkor Wat Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:33, 4 April 2008 editAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 edits FAR for Angkor Wat  Revision as of 02:38, 4 April 2008 edit undoAnmaFinotera (talk | contribs)107,494 edits Angkor Wat: add list of notificationsNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
===]=== ===]===
:''Notified: ], ], ]''
I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and ] in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. ] (]) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC) I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and ] in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. ] (]) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:38, 4 April 2008

Angkor Wat

Notified: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Architecture, User:Henry Flower, User:Merbabu

I am nominating this article for review as I feel it no longer meets the FA criteria. Most concerning is its failure of 1c and 2c with whole paragraphs being appearing to be completely unsourced and confusing mix of referencing styles used. I also feel it fails criteria 3 with an excessive amount of images that flow all the way down the external link sections. Most are unnecessary and do not illustrate the sections they are in and appear to have been added for decoration. It also fails criteria 2a and WP:LEAD in that it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)