Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/European Union (2)

European Union[edit]

This article is very well written. Old division (2004): [1]. To shape up. LUCPOL 11:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lucpol 11:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. It's less than a month since it was removed as a featured article (see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/European Union). I don't see any improvements on the objections since then. --Maitch 12:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the change since it was de-featured. I suggest also that more references and WP:FOOTNOTEs are added and that the ToC is shortened a bit. AndyZ _t 15:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. There are several reasons this article is not ready to be featured:
- The article does not have enough references.
- Many sections lack footnotes.
- There are too many lists which need to be converted back into prose.
- Many of the diagrams included in the article are confusing and overly complicated.

It's simply too little too soon be be re-featured. RyanG e rbil10 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—I don't care about the "too soon", but I do care about the "too little". Why hasn't the article been thoroughly scrutinised by fresh eyes? It's full of redundancies and inconsistencies. New Caledonia is still not listed as part of France. Here are some examples:

"The Schengen Agreement abolished passport control, and customs checks were also abolished at many of the EU's internal borders, creating a single space of mobility for EU citizens to live, travel, work and invest"—The wording still suggests that passport controls have been abolished between all EU member states. Which states were signatories to the Schengen Agreeement, in any case? (Worth specifying.)

"and has plans to accept"—quizz question: which word is redundant?

"Greece, Portugal and Spain were all dictatorships"—same question.

"In more recent times"—same question.

"outside of"—same question.

Sometimes EU is spelt out, sometimes not; sometimes numbers ≥ 10 are spelt out, sometimes not.

"represent the world's largest economy by GDP, larger than the USA, the People's Republic of China, and Japan"—why bother specifying the other economies after the first statment?

The striped map of the original member states is lewd, to put it mildly. The alignment of countries on the x axis of the graphs is sometimes askew. Why is the GDP per capita (PPP) $28K in the table and $23K in the graph to the right? Tony 10:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are two extrnal links sections, one of which does't make any sense. Also, I'm sure that there are more EU subarticles which are nnot linked to by this one. In a genral article like this one, there needs to be a lot of links. Tobyk777 03:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]