Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union/archive4

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:06, 26 November 2010 [1].

---

European Union

European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/European Union/archive1
• Featured article candidates/European Union/archive2
• Featured article candidates/European Union/archive3
• Featured article candidates/European Union/archive4

Nominator(s): Petrb (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article is a former featured article, has been on main page wackywace 11:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It is very good article and I believe it deserves FA again, peer review had many suggestions, some of issues addressed in it were not fixed, one of them is that about 120 from its ~200 references are from one source, I believe that europa.eu is best source and it should not be problem, no matter if it would be successfull or not, I hope your opinions help us to make it better even more, thanks to all participants of FA nomination and to all who improve the article. Petrb (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't checked the licensing of the other images, but none of the non-free ones (File:Schuman Declaration 2.jpg, File:Rometreaty.jpg, File:Signing of the Maastricht Treaty.jpg) are necessary. Yes, the various treaties and such are important, and so worth discussing, but that does not mean we need to illustrate them. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One of them didn't even have a rationale- it would have quick-failed at GAC. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, unfortunately. Impressive work, but I don't think this is ready for FA status

• Long ToC, many short subsections - merge to improve flow and increase accessibility
• Too many images - stacking, sandwiching of text
• One-sentence paragraphs disrupt text flow and should in most cases be merged
• WP:OVERLINK
• Some problems with grammar and flow - needs general copy-edit to achieve clear and professional prose
• Many inconsistencies in reference formatting, some references missing required information (ex. retrieval dates for web sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - uncited sections, way way way overlinked, large sections cited to the European Union itself, referencing issues as noted above. An example of uncited opinion is "National courts within the member states play a key role in the EU as enforcers of EU law, and a "spirit of cooperation" between EU and national courts is laid down in the Treaties." although there are many others. Needs serious work to come up to the use of secondary independant sources for most of this information, which would be needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per others. Fundamental problems with research, citations, fair use images, prose, and MoS. FAC is not an article improvement service. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the images licenced as non-free hav valid FU rationales, and I am unconvinced File:Eirepas.JPG, File:Carte_Européenne_d'Assurance_Maladie_France.jpg, File:04CFREU-Article2-Crop.jpg and File:Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG are not derived work of copyright material. Fasach Nua (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

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