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 by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:59, 3 July 2009 [1].

---

Kammerlader[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notification of relevant parties: Nominator and main contributor User:WegianWarrior, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Firearms, WikiProject Norway all complete.

1(c) - currently no inline citations, which makes it harder to verify. [Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.] Tom B (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say this doesn't stand a chance. It is not sourced, and the layout is dubious. Punkmorten (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about File:Kammerlader 1.jpg. Don't we need license information for each of the images? Otherwise, it's just like taking a picture of a picture in a gallery. Surely it isn't gfdl if the original picture hanging in the gallery is still under copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concern are zero citations, reliable sources, layout. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist citations required for comments such as "It seems that...", "brilliantly simple" and "It is not known..." among others. Doubts over an image copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.