Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aztalan State Park

Aztalan State Park[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

This article is not even close to Featured Article status today. A few bad examples, lead is way too short, too many one sentence paragraphs, only one image and it's oversized and absolutely no refrences nor notes, Writing is very shacky also and there is some awkward sentences. A FA at its worst. Strong Remove --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Does not meet current FA criteria. FCYTravis 19:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Image now uses modern image syntax, is a thumbnail of the largest size uploaded. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Remove. Not "well written" - choppy paragraphs and awkward wording. Not "comprehensive" - though there may not be as much notable information from modern history, such little information after 1919 and no word on anything past 1968 makes me wonder. No guarantee of being "factually accurate" - no references, and certaintly not inline, as required by current FAs. No good lead section - its short, choppy, and has little to do with most of the article. It does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work. -Rebelguys2 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove—not particularly well written. Just a minor point compared with the task at hand concerns the inconsistent and inaccurate treatment of the imperial/metric measurements. Sometimes metrics are first, sometimes imperial. And we have '4 m by 2 m (12 ft by 5 ft)', which doesn't add up when you do the arithmetic. Tony 08:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Does not cite references, this is a requirement for a featured article. Article is way too short. One image for a featured article is unsatisfactory. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I agree with the nom (and previous reviews). In particular, the lead is limp and uninspiring, and should include more about the notability of this park. And, it does need at least a bibliography. --Tsavage 18:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. It's good enough information, but not very close to FA quality. - Taxman ^Talk 23:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]