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 Dana boomer 16:48, 4 October 2012 [1].

Infinite monkey theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Infinite monkey theorem

Notified: Deepak, WikiProject Mathematics

I am nominating this featured article for review because of poor referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Numerous sections are in need of references, prose complaints date back several years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't look like it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like I am seeing little improvements, but the image File:Thomas Henry Huxley - Project Gutenberg eText 16935.jpg has no date and the lack of author information. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the nominator: this seems to fail the FA criteria on the referencing standards, haven't looked at the prose in detail. Overall it would take quite a bit of work to get this up to the sourcing requirements.
• It fails 3c by quite a bit, I counted 12 or 13 unsourced paragraphs (not counting the lead)
• Source reliability (1c) is an issue too. Likely non-high-quality reliable sources include: Think Biblically!: Recovering a Christian Worldview and Quotationspage.com.
• Cruft (4) is probably an issue too, some of the references are a bit trivial, though it's not as bad as Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, Concerns have not been addressed. meshach (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't the point where we vote on listing/delisting just yet. This is the point where we discuss problems and suggest improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Problems with 1a (prose), 2c (citations), and 3 (images problems). Looks like there is a large amount of work required to bring the article up to FA standards. meshach (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article criteria brought up as issues in the review section include referencing, coverage, images and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Agree above comments by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) and Meshach (talk · contribs), a lot of this stuff has not been addressed, mainly due to sourcing and cleanup issues. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my comments above. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my nom statement and Mark's point about cruft. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, It's an interesting article but is not up to FAC standards. Needs quite a bit of work on prose and references. meshach (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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