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 16:02, 11 July 2007.

Margaret Thatcher[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Original nominater gone. Message left at British Government and England. Marskell 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also Bio/Politics and government. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messages left at User talk:Cryptfiend64, UK notice board, Politics and Political figures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article fails criterion (c) "Factually accurate". While the article may be factually accurate, there are many unsourced statements that require inline citations in particular the "Legacy" section. Examples:

Her policies were emulated around the world, and, though divisive, even left-wing politicians such as Tony Benn have stated their admiration for the straight-forward, unflinching way in which she conducted her policies.
She has been credited for her macroeconomic reforms with "rescuing" the British economy from the stagnation of the 1970s, and is admired for her committed radicalism on economic issues.
Many on both the right and left agree that Thatcher had a transformative effect on the British political spectrum and that her tenure had the effect of moving the major political parties rightward.

In addition to these I currently count 15 "citation needed" tags, at least one of which has been there since December 2006. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- These aren't accuracy issues; they're POV and OR issues. But they must go. For example, even if Benn is correctly quoted, and quoted in context (far more important, and less likely), the whole paragraph is a novel (and Tory) synthesis.Remove section (even if neutral, it would belong at Thatcherism) or delist Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails 1b for not mentioning the negative effects on the National Health Service. --BMF81 17:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read this article in detail from beginning to end, but even on a cursory glance it's clear that it fails the featured article criteria on several counts:

Well written – much of the prose is clumsy, confusing or just plain dull. "She graduated with a degree and worked as a research chemist for British Xylonite and then J. Lyons and Co." is hardly of a "professional standard".
Factually accurate and neutral – there are too many "citation needed" tags and far too few inline citations. The Legacy section in particular needs to be completely rewritten according to reliable sources, rather than consisting of one person's unsourced interpretation. My impression based on a quick scan through the article is that it is too biased in favour of Thatcher.
Includes a concise lead section that summarizes the topic – the lead section is far too brief. It includes a couple of trivial facts but says nothing about why she was one of the most important, influential and controversial prime ministers of the 20th century. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."
Of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail – 83 kb is far too long. There is too much detail about relatively minor affairs, such as her dealings with Northern Ireland and South Africa, that would be better off in a more relevant article. The chronological approach is hard to follow and leads to long, dense sections; IMO it would be better to have a brief summary of her career, with separate sections on her most notable policies (privatisation, the unions, foreign policy etc.), and with detail farmed out to separate articles if necessary. "Post-political career" in particular is full of unnecessary trivia. The overall impression is of not being able to see the wood for the trees.

The first and third of these points would be relatively easy to address; the others will take time. In the meantime it should be delisted as a featured article. --Blisco 22:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c), comprehensiveness (1b), POV (1d), and LEAD (2a). Marskell 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c and 2a. LuciferMorgan 10:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as above. DrKiernan 16:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it inappropriate that the life and work of Thatcher´s father is discussed with some detail, while her mother is just mentioned in passing, to say that she bore two daughters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.4.111.200 (talk • contribs) 16:17, July 4, 2007

Remove, apparently abandoned FA. Insufficient lead, unformatted citations, external link farm, doubtful that all references listed were used, cite needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.