Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Margaret Thatcher
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Margaret Thatcher
- Article is still a Featured article.
- Filled with POV, especially Weasel words in the passive voice
- Woefully lacking citations. Opinion is still an opinion if it references another opinion.
- Poor punctuation, sentence fragments, style.
- Bloated with analysis. Was over 75Kb! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J M Rice (talk • contribs) 19:08, May 22, 2006.
Rubbish, ok, maybe it is not written in the best English possible, however, to remove Margaret Thatcher would be absolutely disgraceful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.239.182 (talk • contribs) 02:05, May 27, 2006.
- Whether or not it is "disgraceful" is not relevant here. What matters is how well the article is written, not who the person is. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - as per previous consensus on this page, articles containing references but no inline cites shouldn't be demoted for that reason alone. I didn't see a lot of POV - or, to be more accurate, if there was bias, I couldn't tell if it was biased against Thatcher or in favour of Thatcher. It is on the lengthy side, and I would certainly support some cuts, but being too long is not by itself a reason for demotion. User:The Disco King (not signed in) 204.40.1.129 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - As per above. People will always see bias, as the article reflects different points of view. As for weasel words, well, I could not find any. I think that people are reading out of the article what is not there. It is also a very significant article, linked to many others and about a very important person, which I do feel is a reason for keeping it, as the article itself is of a high quality. Lofty 14:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - The Legacy section is particularly poorly written: "Some people credit her", "Others see her", "She is accused", "Though supporters say", "Critics of this view", "Critics also argue", "Another view", etc. etc. None of these people are identified and the article still has unreferenced assertions littered about. It also includes Coventry Four, which has nothing to do with Thatcher. I can't honestly say this is one of the best articles on wikipedia.--Johnbull 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
