Virtually no citation, and very scanty suggested reading/sources
Inequitable coverage of the war, favouring the beginning and ending
Inadequate coverage of non-military aspects such as domestic politics, labour organisation, legal changes, finance, etc...
Although coverage is generally balanced, there is still missing information about secondary parties, ie. Serbia, Turkey Peregrine981 15:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep - it is good enough for me. -- ALoan(Talk) 15:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Didn't this just reach FA status not that long ago? 205.217.105.2 21:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No - I've had a look but can't locate the FAC discussion, so it must be some while ago; but it was FARCed only this February. -- ALoan(Talk) 21:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an old school FA - it's been an FA for at least 14 months, probably longer. →Raul654 07:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Where is the FARC discussion? I don't see it in the archive. - TaxmanTalk 15:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Remove. Bottom line is I'd object if I saw this on FAC. Lot's of short paras. Timeline ('The spread of war') should be moved to Timeline of World War I. Aftermath section is a joke - 3 lines? That might have been impressive 2 or so years ago. Today it's a good article for Peer Review. It's close to FA, but not close enough. Take it down unless objections are adressed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul PiotrusTalk 21:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep'; that is not the bottom line at all for me. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If you see some things you don't like, go fix them. Add the things you think it needs. In general though, this is pretty good. - TaxmanTalk 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Comment One of the main requirements for a featured articles is that it should be "Comprehensive: Covers the topic in its entirety; does not omit any major facts or details." However, this article omits large fields of knowledge, not simply a few facts or details. I have added much to this article, in fact there was absolutely no discussion of non-military aspects. However, I do not personally have an in depth personal knowlege of all such aspects, or of the progress of the war in the mid-east, balkans, italy, etc... I don't really buy the argument that it may not be featured quality, but it eventualy will be as an argument for keeping it. Peregrine981 02:59, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
keep - this is a pretty good article, none of the above are good reasons to take it off the list.--Fenice 15:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've kept an eye on this article for a while, and I've never liked it much. It has improved quite a bit. At times it has been rather dismal. Still, I don't think this is quite up to the very high standards we like to hold ourselves to. WWI is a hugely important topic, and I think there's still significant room for improvement here. Everyking 07:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
