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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:00, 25 January 2010 [1].

• Featured article candidates/Jonathan Wild

• Featured article review/Jonathan Wild/archive1

Notified: User talk:Geogre, ... Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, ...

Promoted in October 2004, its a worthy and interesting subject but has fallen way behind current FA standards.

1. Severe lack of citations, some sections are barely cited at all.
2. Prose is ok, but not the standard that you'd expect at FA - for instance "By 1724, London political life was experiencing a crisis of public confidence", and "There are a few treatments of Wild that attempt to dramatize his life, but there remains only one full length non-fiction biography on Wild" - British article, and US spelling also.
3. Two images lack sufficient source data. Parrot of Doom 19:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested featured article criterion concerns are citations, prose and copyright YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. I agree with the nom rationale. Unfortunately, nothing has been done to improve the article to address those above concerns, regarding current FA standards. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – As the other reviewers have said, the insufficient citations and prose issues, among other things, cause the article to fail modern FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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