Wikipedia:Featured article review/Olympic Flame/archive1

Olympic Flame edit

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary edit

Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics. Sandy 23:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted in May 2004, has also been featured on the main page. However, this article suffers from a lack of inline citations, subpar prose, and one gigantic list.

There have been very few edits to remedy this, and I feel that the article no longer meets FA standards. Morgan695 22:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article to be difficult to follow. It seems to take basic information for granted. How large is this torch? Is the "Olympic Flame" the small torch carried by runners, the large structural torch within the stadium, or both? How is it made and what is it made of? What is its design? How does it remain lit? What kind of "priestessess" do they represent (Christian? Greek? generic?) and what is the story behind that ritual? What is "the cauldron"? Punctured Bicycle 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is very far from FA quality. CG 12:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Punctured Bike points out, there's far too much information missing from this article. Near-lack of references is also a problem. Andrew Levine 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is appropriate. I can not see any way in which the same information could be better presented, or any rationale for omitting it. It is a short article that seems to be supported by Olympische Spiele – Die Chronik, a large work (it says "five volumes"); however, the reference is incompletely given (has neither an ISBN nor publisher's details). Some additional references to support individual points in the article would be desirable. Can we fix this, please? Rather than making the horse go through the whole course (i.e. FAC) again? I feel we would be wasting people's time a bit. Fix to keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And move to WP:GA if no consensus to keep. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the original author and nominator, I'll be able to supply the article with decent (inline) references, and clean up the article (which has suffered from many people adding tiny bits). Jeronimo 19:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two edits since it was nominated for FAR, move to FARC. Sandy 21:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of citations (2c), structure (5), and writing quality (2a). Marskell 09:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Not improved significantly. Punctured Bicycle 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. No inline citations! Only one reference. Poor information as far as the history is concerned. Too short lead. Of course, remove as it is now.--Yannismarou 19:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Not referenced, nothing is changing, no improvement. Sandy 01:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. I'm most unimpressed by this article. As per other reviewers. Tony 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]