Wikipedia:Featured article review/Holy Prepuce/archive1

Holy Prepuce[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Messages left at Muriel Guttrop, Religion, Catholicism. Sandy 23:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have one brief look and see for yourselves that this is hardly an FA on any of the criteria! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lead too short, not referenced, and some strange editorializing throughout the prose: "Thus modern, and probably medieval, ideas of what Jesus' foreskin would be like were, and are, wide of the mark.[citation needed]" !! Sandy 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Short lead. Poor references. No inline citations. A stubbby section. Not FA quality.--Yannismarou 08:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The lead section is too short as editors have commented, and also the article lacks inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. One edit since nominated. Sandy 04:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns lead, referencing and tone (editioralzing). Joelito (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - No inline citations (1. c. violation), and inadequate lead. LuciferMorgan 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per previously stated concerns. It's a shame, as this lemma features in The History Boys, recently released as a film to great acclaim. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Per all above.--Yannismarou 18:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Per above Jay32183 20:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per above. Badbilltucker 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]