Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chinatown

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chinatown[edit]

Article is no longer a featured article

There's no record of the discussion by which this came to be featured (or at least it's not linked from the appropriate place in the template on the talk page). Over time, the article has become a bit of a sprawling mess, circling around to some topics more than once, and with a good bit of mediocre writing. I put a little work into it myself a few months agoe, but it's more than I want to take on to get it back to FA quality.

Of course, I'd be very glad if someone does a rescue job, but it seems like no one has been "minding the store": that is, I'd guess that whoever once got this up to FA quality hasn't been keeping an eye on additions over time and integrating them into the article structure, and inevitably this article is a bit of a magnet for additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:06, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I apparently originally forgot to place this on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates, so the clock should start now. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:45, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

  • User:Hoary has now made some genuine stylistic improvements, but not enough, in my opinion, to get this back up to FA level. In fact, the fact that there are places where this user admits to not being able to decipher the intended meaning of a passage speaks volumes. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I had thought about nominating this article myself. Even if it was re-edited to FA quality, the article is edited way too often, especially by Wikipedia newbies, to keep it there. Just trying to keep the Chinatown article regularly spell-checked is an impossible task. BlankVerse 04:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - {{fac}} was added by Dori on 10 April 2004. From poking around in the WP:FAC page history at around that date, here is the diff when Raul654 promoted it (actually a decent amount of discussion for that period). (The comment that the archived discussion cannot be found comes up so often, surely it should be in the FAQ...) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]