Wikipedia:Featured article review/Libya/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:Joelr31 16:06, 28 June 2008 [1].

Libya

Review commentary

Notified projects/users: WikiProject Libya, Jaw101ie, Xyzzy n and FayssalF

I have conserns about 1b, and some minor conserns about 1c. Major facts and details that should have been included, is i.e.

the conflict between Libya and Chad, and Gadaffis attempt to make a libyan-chadish union.
The armed forces/defense of Libya
Divisions/Subdivisions; the municipalities used is outdated.
Economy: The article doesn't tell anything about unemployness, and is spare when it comes to information about business activities in Libya, and also about export/import.
Economy: "an extensive and impressive level of social security" is somewhat unclear, when it does not tell what the social security is.
Demography: The age of the population, and birth mortality.
The culture section is spare, not mentioning important issues like sport in Libya, or food.
Under religion: The time for the oldest jewish settlement is wrong compared to the given source.

Grrahnbahr (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and citatons (1c). Marskell (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per all of the above, and I opposed when it was at FAC for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, nothing have been done to the article the last weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per above.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, because the problems with the article staying FA-class have not been addressed. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I have some additional comments:

Lead gives too much space about the name and neglects other important facts. I suggest creating a Name section
The History section should be reviewed by an expert of someone knowledgeable about the subject. Seems to give too much emphasis to conquests and not enough to internal developments. Also one-sentence paragraphs.
It seems POV that a "Human Rights" section exists in this article while it is not found in most other countries articles.
Update "Municipalities", and add information about local governance.

And excuse me, if this is not the place for these kind of comments. I'm new to the FAR process. Eklipse (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are very welcome. Providing a review is the purpose of FAR! DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 24 June 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.