Wikipedia:Featured article review/Invasion/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 08:05, 27 April 2007.

---

Invasion

Review commentary

Messages left at MilHist and Kafziel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel really terrible listing an article for FAR, but it's a learning experience as I've never done it before. Well, basically I think the article isn't quite up to FA standards. It's close, but I think the criteria back then is different to the very high standards now. Well, the bottom of the list feels a bit listy, with a very short description of a select group of invasion examples. The see also section is in the wrong place (I'd do it myself, but I thought I'd leave it for now to show the article's state...) On top of that, it is a lot shorter than one would hope for a large topic such as this. Other minor stuff is there, but over all I think the article needs a big expansion & removal from the listy elements (Maybe a larger section on the invasions?). I have no intentions of removing the article's status, merely hoping for it to get a makeover. Thanks Spawn Man 11:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Spawnman, can you please notify any relevant WikiProjects (usually listed on the talk page) and original author (usually on the FAC) with {{subst:FARMessage|Invasion}}? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I did actually (forgot author though). Thanks for making me feel like a newb again who doesn't know how to edit on here.... :( Spawn Man 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry — I didn't mean to do that :-) Just trying to get more nominators to do that work, as it's so tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• remove not enough material is sourced--Sefringle 20:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, please don't declare "remove" unless/until it's moved down to FARC. Tony 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the prose can do with a run-through during this process. Tony 23:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lists and sectioning (2), comprehensiveness (1b), and prose (1a). Marskell 07:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Remove—significant issues with excessive headings and mini-sections. Refs aren't a major issue, but the prose needs a massage (an example: "There are many different methods by which an invasion can take place, each method having arguments both in their favor and against.") — Deckiller 00:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 18:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove as for Tyler's reasoning. 1a's a problem, too; take the opener: "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory, or altering the established government." Strictly speaking (and we should be strict about the exposed openings), the first clause is ungrammatical—there's a possessive–gerund issue (nominal group possessive plus gerund ("entering"); "the entering by ..." is required. Why a comma after "territory"? Tony 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Remove. Per Deckiller.--Yannismarou 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.