Weather lore

Article is no longer a featured article.

Was nominated in May 2004, references requested in April 2005, and not much happened. 2 references, 4 external links, no inline cites, and it doesn't look like there is any enthusiasm to add them. Batmanand | Talk 21:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly added here rather than peer review? Move the request across, maybe? Brain on another planet, agree with removal, not on basis of inline cites, but inadaquate scope and sources. --zippedmartin 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written... Then how did it get to be a FA in the first place? If you want to be useful here you might try raising criticisms that are actionable. Denni ☯ 23:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It got to FA status by being nominated in May 2004, when both the criteria and the degree of scrutiny for FACs was considerably lower than they are today. Batmanand | Talk 00:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's bullshit. Those who voted it as a good article then would, I think, vote it a good article now. I will agree with you that articles must now meet stiffer criteria to succeed as FA, but I think it's nonsense to presume that those which no longer do are suddenly "poorly written". Denni ☯ 00:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil in your comments. I accept what you are saying, but this is a discssion about the article being defeatured; you have partially answered one of the criticisms (about the prose), but that does not change anything about the referencing issue, which IMO is the big problem with the article. Batmanand | Talk 00:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be rude. What I meant by poorly written is that the article reads somewhat like an essay. There are also a lot of questions one might ask about weather lore that this article does not answer. For example, who were the first people to use it, who uses it now? how do they compare to modern methods of weather prediction? Most/all of the article is an evaluation of the validity of various rhymes and adages rather than about their history/origins, which I would think would also warrant some mention. In response to why it became an FA in the first place, it seems that a large reason that a consensus was reached was that many people simply liked the pictures. Lewis 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a complete article. Any topic can be extended. This one is no different. You may also wish to revisit the comments in the FA discussion. Of six supporters, four stated they liked the article, one did not differentiate between pictures and text, and only one comment related only to the pictures. Denni ☯ 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I am saying is that I don't believe the article is comprehensive enough to be a FA. FA Criteria #2 b) says that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details. This really has nothing to do with what was said in the previous FA discussion, in its current state, I don't believe that it is sufficiently referenced or comprehensive, sorry. Lewis 21:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Needs to be more heavily referenced. Request is almost a year old now. Borisblue 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as per many of the points above, especially the OP. I can understand how it became a FA, though; despite its shortcomings, it's an enjoyable piece of writing and charming in its way. Much too superficial however. Matt Deres 00:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove For OR and basically no references. Staxringold 14:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the talk page, a request for references was made over a year ago, on 22 April 2005 to be precise. This diff was the result of that request. Then nothing happened for a year, until I nominated it for FARC. Batmanand | Talk 10:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read my comment just above? To repeat, a year-old request hardly satisfies the requirement. The nomination should be withdrawn and its deficiencies flagged on the talk page. Here, people are pointing out a number of issues; these should all have been notified first. Tony 10:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a year old request, if completely ignored, just shows how much long the problems in an article have been ignored, and to me, perfectly meets the guideline. But if the request have been at least partly fulfilled, as it has in this case (a couple references have been added), then I'm with you. But it's a little late in this case, and consensus is clearly that it should be removed, so given the situation, I don't see the sense in enforcing the guideline now. We should do it right away or not at all. - Taxman Talk 14:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was about the lack of referencing. A request for more referencing, that was barely heeded, was made a year ago. Hence the "comments detailing the article's deficiencies" are already on the talk page. Hence, whilst the letter of the law may not have been followed, the spirit of the law most certainly has been. Batmanand | Talk 15:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More