Wikipedia:Featured article review/Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs/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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [1].

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notifications to Rad Racer and WP Drug Policy

A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of the above. I was about to nominate this for FAR as well when I came across this article. --Allstar86 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not even close. None of the refs are formatted properly, no real inline citations to speak of, choppy/list-y prose, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

Image:Opium harvesters3.jpg: source is a dead link. Can we be sure it's a DEA picture?
Image:Grizlov 139.jpeg: source is a dead link. No evidence that Rosbalt news agreed to the image's use.
Image:Opium-processing.jpg: source is a dead link.
Image:En incb.gif source is a dead link. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain.
Image:ECOSOC meeting.jpg: no specific source cited. No evidence that the copyright holder has released the image into the public domain. (Indeed, most if not all UN sites have "All rights reserved" at the bottom.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are formatting and MoS (2), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Numerous concerns remain unaddressed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep featured IIRC, the source of the Rosbalt image had a policy of releasing all their stuff. As for the other broken links, it's to be expected that after several years, some sites would change/remove some of their pictures; does that mean we have to remove ours, because they removed theirs? It would not have made it to featured if there were blatant copyvios. The promotion predates the type of inline citations we use now; but it's nothing a bot couldn't take care of quickly, given that the bare urls are inline. These concerns are insufficient to merit removal. EVCM (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I agree with Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) and with above points by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove 1c, linkfarm. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still say you're making a mistake. It's not a linkfarm; substantially everything under the references header is something that is cited inline so as to back up a fact with a citation. All that really needs to be done is to put it into our standard format of <ref>'s, which a bot should be able to easily do. EVCM (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, all of the above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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