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 02:34, 19 April 2009 [1].

attempted to notify User:Dharmabum420 as FAC nominator but he is blocked, notified User:Pigsonthewing, User:A Knight Who Says Ni, User:Anger22, and User:PurplePlatypus as significant contributors. Have also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd.

A big Pink Floyd fan myself, it pains me to do this but I don't feel the article represents the best of Wikipedia. It was promoted in 2006, and things have moved along since that time.

Reasons not to be cheerful:

• Poor standard of writing

"Roger Waters left Cambridge in 1962 to take architecture courses at the Regent Street Polytechnic in London" - what is Cambridge, and where was he taking these courses to?

"There he met his fellow student Nick Mason." - why did Mason belong to Waters?

"blues and folk guitarist and vocalist Syd Barrett joined the band. Waters then moved to bass and Wright to full time keyboards."

"When The Tea Set found themselves on the same bill as another band with the same name, Barrett came up with the alternative name The Pink Floyd Sound," - shouldn't those names be italicised?

There are more examples throughout the article - it would take far too long to list them here.

• Linking problems

"joined the existing group, Sigma 6.[9] Sigma 6 was also" - overlinking

"The Sound was dropped fairly quickly, but the definite article was still used regularly until 1970" - 'the definite article' goes to a wiki grammar page.

• Citations - a lack of citations on various paragraphs and sentences. Also, there are a great many sources that may not satisfy wp:reliable in the reference section. Many citations are incorrectly formatted.

There may well be other problems, but I feel that at least for the reasons above, the status of this article should be reviewed. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Reference and prose issues persist. It breaks my heart to do this to an article on one of my favorite bands of all time. :( Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Unsourced claims, e.g. "ramshackle", "popularity". Unsourced quotes. DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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