Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jarmann M1884/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 Marskell 11:41, 30 November 2009 [1].

Jarmann M1884

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Jarmann M1884

Featured article review/Jarmann M1884/archive1

Notified: listed WikiProjects

There are effectively no reliable sources cited in this article. The first book chapter, cited a lot of times, are by a gunshop owner named Hanevik who runs his own printing house, so it's self-published. The only other two sources are also home made websites, and the lead is short. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Norwegian soldiers armed with Jarmann (late 1880s).jpg and File:Norwegian soldiers armed with Jarmann (1893).jpg: no sources
File:M28 ad (1930).jpg: licensing status uncertain. This was originally uploaded as a fair-use image. Applying a strict reading, if it was published in Norway in 1930 (as claimed) then it was in copyright in 1996 (copyright expired 31 December 2000). Hence, though it may now be public domain in Norway, it isn't necessarily in the public domain in the States. DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails 1c on the FA criteria as large chunks of the article are missing inline citations leaving it unverifiable. Additionally, although a minor quibble, the external links really needed to be edited so they are using the correct template.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c Single sourced, and per YellowMonkey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nominating statement YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per YellowMonkey. Also, article is missing citations in many areas, including statistics that need to be sourced. Dana boomer (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like to see Delist declarations early in the FARC period (lest improvements continue), but since no one has touched this article for months, in spite of the FAR, Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, 3 weeks, and no action. I'd expect MILHIST to have been aware, they keep a reasonably good watch on their articles' status. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're aware, but there is no concerted task allocation etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above, many unsourced portions, no one has touched it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:53, 20 November 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.