Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union

European Union

Article is no longer a featured article.

This article passed through FAC many almost two years ago. It has no references, is mostly tables, and does not cover such a large subject with any adequate treatment. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 05:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove for lack of references and poor structure (the article is dominated by short bullet points). The information is probably all there, though, or could be easily fetched from the subarticles, so the article is not unsalvagable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Remove for lack of references (i.e. basically none for the article text) but the structure alone isn't THAT bad IMHO Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 06:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-weak keep Although there is a lack of refrences, (And the ones there are are merged with external links), this is a well written, informative article,; it's one of the best on wikipedia. If refrences are added, I will renominate this on FAC.
Remove. Unacceptable. Neutrality^talk 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, regrettably: first, please sign your name here (super-weak keep); Neutrality, please don't just say 'unacceptable'—that means little here. At least one reason is necessary.

IMV, this article is inadequate, but within reach of FA if the main contributors can bring themselves to fix it now. The writing is OK, but it's not comprehensive (Criterion 2b). In particular, there's little information on the relationship between the Commisssion, the European Parliament, the Council, the judiciary, and the governments of the member states. There are links at the bottom that probably say more about this, but it should be provided here in summary form. There's nothing about the budget, how revenue is raised and what it is allocated to. There's nothing about language in the institutions themselves. Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are non-members: tell us why. In the lead, there are a few misleading statements: should the clause in brackets appear after "the euro"?: "a single currency (the euro) managed by the European Central Bank (adopted by 12 of the 25 member states)". Noumea is missing from the parts of France that are not on the main map. Tony 06:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak remove, but only for lack of references. The structure is, in principle, okay. Should references be added, consider my vote to be strong keep. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References are being added, so consider my vote a keep. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom Zzzzz 23:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom --Off! 11:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep I don't really see how anyone can say that the article is mostly tables? Maybe I am looking at revised version? Yes, it needs more references but I think editors seem to be getting to it. So count me as conditional keep if appropriate references are added.--Blacksun 23:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add the required references. Page Up 00:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove since the article is basically an intro to a big list; a not particularly outstandingly well-written list at that. Davodd 09:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove lack of refrences. Computerjoe 's talk 07:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]