Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2015

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 kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 1:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC) [1].

Notified: User talk:LiquidGhoul, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

1. The article is less than half the readable prose size of other featured articles in the same subject area: Green and golden bell frog, Common toad and Cane toad, indicating that the article might not be comprehensive. For example, this source (used in the article) says some taxonomists place the species in the Pelodryas genus, but there's no mention of this in the article.
2. The sentence on HIV. The source appears to be a news story, but if the secretions were useful than there ought to be more substantial coverage in the scientific literature.
3. There are some statements, such as that its lifespan is long for a frog and that reduction in numbers is difficult to spot, that ought to have citations. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it looks short, but I guess we'll need someone with a bit of expertise on frogs to determine whether the literature has been used exhaustively enough. Cwmhiraeth has worked on quite a few frog articles, maybe she has something to add? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the old FAC page, it seems some issues about sourcing were brought up but never acted on, as the writer responded with: "Inline citation are not required for featured article, and in my opinion they are not really necessary for uncontroversial information. In addition to the inline cites that are provided for relevant points, this article has a references section that list other works consulted writing the article." That does not seem to be how the FA criteria are written today. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This article became a FA ten years ago when I guess standards were rather different from what they are now. Since then it has suffered from quite a bit of vandalism and very little maintenance. At the moment I think it fails the comprehensiveness test. Looking at this source alone I see information that is not presently included in the article but needs to be added. I am unsure about FA review procedures. Shall I have a go at resuscitating the article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That'd be great! Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done quite a bit of work on the article and think it is now closer to meeting the FA criteria than it was. In particular, I have added a section "Use in research" which brings it more up to date. With regard to the HIV research mentioned above, I have not found a published paper but the present source is not a news source but a pretty comprehensive statement about the direction in which the research is going. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close without FARC. Thank you for expanding the article by more than 40% and removing the uncited text. I have cut a little bit more from the distribution section and added the citation for the scientific study on HIV. I can see on pubmed that there are literature reviews that cite the study, so I have no remaining WP:MEDRS concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I added one cn tag, but this is within range to keep without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cut that sentence. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close without FARC. just did some minor copyediting and hunting for other material without seeing much to add. Recomment closing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 kept by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 9:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC) [2].

Notified: User:Brianboulton, WikiProject Biography

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Fails 1.B 1.C and 1.D -- There is a new biography published in February 2015 by Yale University Press that contains substantial new information and re-assessment of Benjamin Morrell based on new research from archival sources. The current article contains important omissions, too much emphasis on certain things and not enough on others. I would certainly like to improve the article but it really needs a top to bottom sentence by sentence audit, new sections etc.. and it's probably beyond my current time budget. In any case it is no longer an accurate reflection of Benjamin Morrell according to the latest research and shouldn't be featured as the best of Wikipedia. I left some notes on the talk page. GreenC 02:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Cardamom, I see you only posted to the article's talk page a few days ago - per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, we'd like to have discussion on the talk page for a week or two before starting a formal FAR. Thus, I'm placing this review on hold for now. I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for any response on the talk page and discuss potential improvements for a while longer, and if after that period significant issues remain we can reopen the review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this on hold. The new source, obviously not available five years ago when the article was written, appears from its blurb to focus on a particular phase of Morell's career, rather than on his whole life. Until I've seen the book I can't judge how its content should be reflected in the article, but I have to say that the claim that the article needs "a top to bottom sentence by sentence audit" seems like ridiculous hyperbole, asserting the unreliability of every other source. The book is not easily available in the UK, so I may need some time before I can get to grips with it. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended with any of my comments. I would recommend reading the book as most of the article could be updated with information therein (and it's a ripping good book). The author is a professional historian (ie academic), used primary source unpublished sources no one has before (unpublished diaries etc), found information no one else has before. It's a modern academic book-length treatment of Morrell. Nothing else like it exists. If you like feel free to borrow my digital copy - send me a Wiki email. -- GreenC 13:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. Brianboulton (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the "sentence by sentence audit" comment above, I would add this: the article was prepared in 2010 on the basis of the best sources that were then available. The publication of a new source, which happens many times in the case of many articles, does not of itself invalidate all earlier sources or render the article useless. It is right that an article should be modified and updated with regard to any new information; this is the normal process of article maintenance, with which I'm sure we all agree. Why is that process not being followed here? I see no justification at all for making a single new source the occasion of a FAR – this looks to me like a misuse of the process.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)

Brian, the FAR was initiated because talk page concerns went unanswered (though I was supposed to wait a little longer). So long as there is progress being made to address the issues there is no reason to worry about the FAR. You said you could not read the book I sent you via an email attachment because it was too big and garbled (it was a 6MB epub). I offered to send the book via another method (web page download). You did not respond. Are you still interested in reading the source? -- GreenC 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom: Well, you posted on the talk page on 20 March, did not ping me as principal author, then brought the matter to FAR three days later. I don't think that's reasonable – I call that trigger-happy. I'm not worried about the outcome of an FAR once I've had the chance to see the book, though I am angry at your unjustifiable rubbishing of the article. However, my feelings will not stand in the way of updating the article. I had not replied to your last email because I have been struggling to load the necessary software on the basis of the link you provided. Unfortunately I can't make that work either. If you are prepared to send the book via web page download, that would be useful. I am not even sure that the book is yet available in book form in the UK, so I'd probably have to get the print version from the US which would mean a further delay. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just sent the book via email as a web link to a PDF. It's a conversion from epub to pdf so lost the professional layout but is usable. -- GreenC 02:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom: Book received, thank you. In the pdf format the pagination is different - this version runs to 645 pages, so I will need help in adjusting page ranges to the printed version. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAR co-ordinators: I will need a little time to read this rather long book and make the necessary adjustments to the article, in the midst of other work, so please bear with me if progress is not immediately apparent. I will be working on it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR is on hold, yet discussion is continuing here ... could you all please use the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, if you wish I will transfer the comments from 26 March onwards to the talkpage. Discussion on page numbering will continue there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report

The new book, The Captain and the Cannibal by James Fairhead (2015) is a valuable source. It's not a biography – it skates over Morrell's earlier years and adventures, and deals almost exclusively with the fourth of his "Four Voyages", and with the events in the remaining years of his life. It provides much useful detail, enabling a substantial expansion of the latter part of the article. The following is a summary of work carried out:

• Expansion of the "Fourth voyage" section, with additional detail and correction of some chronological confusion in the earlier version
• The "Later life" section has been expanded and is now presented in three subsections: "Money-making", summarising Morrells commercial activities following his return from his fourth voyage; "Return to the Pacific", providing a full account of this disastrous venture and its aftermath – early sources have glossed over this episode in a single line; "Final years and death", a fuller account of Morrell's last years, including Fairhead's novel theory of a staged death.
• I have rewritten the lead, to reflect the revised and extended content.
• I have checked every external link, and replaced several that were no longer working.
• Finally, I have read through the whole text, and refreshed the prose where this appeared necessary (standards were a little less stringent in 2009).

I believe that I have done everything within reason to restore the article to the required FA standard. It would have been a lot easier to write the article had this been available six years ago. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have no further issue concerning FA status. I have some other questions which I'll take to the talk page. -- GreenC 22:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to close this shortly as a keep, unless there are further comments or other FAR coordinators act sooner/object. So, if editors do have remaining concerns please raise them soon. DrKiernan (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep w/o FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [3].

Notified: Johantheghost, WP Water sports, WP Sailing

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest featured article promotions and has not been reviewed since 2006. Since promotion, it has been tagged for citation and weasel words. . DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC – Without even looking that closely at the article, the numerous cite tags by themselves show that it does not meet the FA criteria. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of the book sources used in the article, which would probably be necessary to attempt a save, or I'd try working on it myself. Sadly, without work this will eventually need to be delisted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised in the review section largely centred on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Tagged for citation and weasel words for a year. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – All of the tagged issues from earlier are still present and appear likely to remain so. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 4:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [4].

Notified: SeleneFN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel like it no longer meets FA criteria. There are whole sections and paragraphs that are completely unsourced, and random sentences that aren't sourced. And the sources that are there do not seem reliable to me. Not something I would consider a FA. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I'm utterly confused as to why until now it wasn't nominated to be delisted. I support your nomination to delist this article, it would need months of work at least to bring it back to FA standard. I can only think of looking in google books to find any of this unsourced information, but that's about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Burklemore1, please review the instructions at WP:FAR. The article is nominated for review; Keep or Delist are declared when/if it moves to the FARC section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• SandyGeorgia: Oops, I misread. Thanks for the letting me know. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist article. Clean-up banners automatically qualify for delisting. Besides, some of the references are not reliable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CookieMonster755, please read the FAR instructions and the comments on this page just above yours. Your declaration won't be considered at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised in the review section largely centred on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Currently in multiple clean up categories: articles lacking reliable references, articles needing additional references, articles with dead external links from September 2010, articles with unsourced statements from January and April 2015, and BLP articles lacking sources. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, no one working on improving deficiences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [5].

Notified: Ccson, WP African diaspora, WP Fraternities and Sororities, WP Cornell

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notification from March 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC-- the problems here are quite significant including original research, text not in citations given, and close paraphrasing bordering on plagiarism everywhere one looks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sources are dubious, and unformatted/incomplete citations have been added. MOS issues of every kind can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include close paraphrasing, OR, verifiability, referencing, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced statements, including "Arguably..."; unreliable sources; weasel-words; redundant prose, such as "in the year 1903". DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Some examples of outstanding issues:
  • The article veers back and forth between “black”, “African-American”, and “Black”, with no apparent correlation to the terminology used in the sources.
  • Some of the most basic facts do not seem to be accurate. The fraternity’s own website claims 706 chapters, yet our lead says more than 730 and our infobox says 800+! Likewise, the frat’s website claims 200,000 total members initiated since founding, yet our article says “over 290,000” in both the lead and the infobox. The lead indicates active chapters in Africa, Europe, the Caribbean, and Asia, yet the only active chapters outside the US, as shown on the frat’s website, are in Puerto Rico and the UK.
  • There are three ‘citation needed’ tags and two ‘not in citation given’ tags.
  • An image review is needed. Two of them—File:Cornell Arts Quad 1919.jpg and File:Alphafstconvent.jpg—are missing proper author information, and neither has a proper source listed either, so one can’t really conclude that they are PD even though they’re old.
  • Comprehensiveness issues: “The Seven Jewels” appellation is mentioned in the lead but not anywhere in the article body. It is also not cited anywhere. The article later lists the 7 founders, but only wikilinks to two of them despite four of them having existing articles—and the list of 7 is followed by a sentence about Jones that simply does not parse.
  • Dated information: The information in the National programs section is very much at odds with the information the frat’s website provides under the same title.

Quite a bit of work is needed to bring this up to current FA standards. Maralia (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [6].

Notified: Main contributor retired since 2008, WP USA, WP Politics

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion which no longer meets standards, as explained on talk in December 2014. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised with this article include BLP, coverage, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - This article is not up to modern standards. There are many issues, some of which I outlined on the talk page as linked above. Among the most problematic are the inadequate lead (a mere 5 sentences long) and the lack of any thread to tie the sections together into a cohesive narrative. Maralia (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Single sentence paragraphs; inconsistent citation formatting; dead links. DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [7].

Notified: Zscout370 (retired), WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Mexico

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that no longer meets standards: see talk page notification from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised with this article include referencing, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced statements include "It is a common mistake..." and "This error occurs due to the fact that some people incorrectly believe..." Unclear prose includes "the central emblem is the Aztec pictogram for Tenochtitlan" (I would describe the central emblem as the Mexican coat of arms). Dead links, some of which may not count now as reliable sources. The layout of the page is unusual: partly formatted as a list, with images colliding with or beside formatted quotes/block text (particularly in the Civil ceremonies section). DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [8].

Notified: WP:History of photography, nominator long gone and no one else to notify

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that no longer meets standards: see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised with this article include referencing and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced sentences, including "There has been criticism of Vishniac's work", "It has been argued that he should have also photographed wealthier Jews, in addition to the poor Jews in ghettos" and "He probably believed in God or some similar concept, but he was non-denominational and did not adhere strictly to the principles of any religion." Inadvisable prose, such as "did some photography (see right)". Dead links, bare urls. DrKiernan (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC) [9].

Notified: Morwen, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

I am nominating this featured article for review because, while it is well-written and fairly comprehensive, it was awarded FA status back in November 2006, when standards here at Wikipedia were very different for GA and FA entries. In its current state, this page has various chunks of text, some of them fairly major, which are simply un-referenced, and that is not acceptable for an FA. I have raised this issue over at the article's talk page with the editor who first pulled this article up to FA, and on the basis of that discussion I felt that the next step was FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main concern: Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, where you planning to follow and keep the page updated here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SandyGeorgia: I was thinking that this article should probably be delisted, but was waiting to see if anyone else agreed or disagreed. Apologies if I've made a mistake somewhere in dealing with this; it is the first time that I have initiated a FAR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would update this page on progress (if any). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no progress on the article at all; indeed, it hasn't seen an edit since November 2014. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, inadequate citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, no progress or response to concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [10].

Notified: Scm83x, WP Dallas Fort Worth, ‎ WP Schools‎

URFA nom

Talk page notified Dec 2014

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some united text, but more importantly, has not been updated. Many of the statements date to five years or more, and some of the statements have no "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a cursory look, I found the following:

• Historical dollar figures are explicitly converted to 2005 dollars, which is not very useful in 2015.
• "Plano offers 31 Advanced Placement courses, which is all of the 34 courses possible" - A quick search shows this is no longer true: there are 37 possible, and Plano offers 29.
• "Plano administers more Advanced Placement tests each year than any other school west of the Mississippi River and all but one school in the United States." - Our article Edinburg North High School makes the same claim (verbatim!), and cites the same source. I cannot verify either. On further review, it seems that the Edinburg article was created via copy/paste from Plano, and still (6 years later!) is full of garbage 'facts'—I guess I know what I'm doing next.
• 2007 SAT score averages are somewhat useless given the changes in the scoring rubric. 2014 scores are available.
• There are bare urls and otherwise incomplete citations, as well as 6 deadlinks.

Significant work is needed to bring this up to date and up to current standards. Maralia (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing and datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I e-mailed the original article creator. Will that be like a Bat Signal for him? I hope he springs to the rescue like Superman! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced statements; dead links; unencyclopedic and ungrammatical language such as "to this day she serves as principal [with no full stop]". DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my comments above (only the first has been addressed). Maralia (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [11].

Notified: WikiProject Chemistry

I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot paragraphs or sentence need additional footnotes, I list some problems at talk page 2 weeks before, but still didn't saw anything happen. Consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here. FAC nominator was not active since early June 2007.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Obviously written by a knowledgeable editor, but woefully lacking citations and reads very much like it was written closely from a textbook. Needs a lot of attention from a subject matter expert. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: On a quick skim, I don't see anything in here up to the modern methods section that couldn't be cited to a good textbook on the subject. All the specific numbers, selectivities, etc. in the images might be a challenge. The tone of the prose is a little overly didactic but I think that wasn't uncommon in technical articles at the time this was promoted; I wrote most of (since-defeatured) sequence alignment around then and it took a similar approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review mostly concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Tagged as needing additional references in March 2015. Tagged for vague or ambiguous prose in April 2011. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist this just does not meet modern standards for verifiability. Maralia (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist: inappropriate tone, too many pictures, and lack of references.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Way off current standards.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [12].

User:Marskell inactive. Notified: WikiProjects Spaceflight and Astronomy
WP:URFA nomination

As noted on the talk page, there is uncited text throughout the article. Promoted in 2005, it is one of the oldest unreviewed featured articles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this would take a lot of work to bring up to current standards especially wrt verifiability. The templated table in the lead—{{Wpspace}}—is a true relic: we don't link to WikiProject space from articlespace (and it's a defunct WikiProject, at that). Maralia (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the odd name, that's not a Wikiproject link. It's the name of that space colonization navbox template. That said, there's a lot of work to do here. There's substantial tracts of uncited text, and while some material has been updated as the science in this field advances, it's clear that it has been an uneven process, and a lot of relatively recent scholarship hasn't made its way here. The minimal coverage given to subsurface ocean environments (Enceladus, Europa) really highlights how much this landscape has changed in the last 10 years. I think it's possible to salvage this, but it'll need some dedicated work by editors both familiar with the required source material and with easy access to it (I'm likely neither for this one). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did link to a WikiProject—someone just fixed that before you got there. In any case, your point about Enceladus is a good one; there is substantial work needed to bring this up to date. Maralia (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs. Unclear statements tagged in March 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 09:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist – Among other issues, there has been enough unsourced content added that it would take a concerted effort to resolve. In its current form, the article does not satisfy the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - I appreciate the work that been done in the past month, but the article is still lacking in citations and in coverage. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [13].

Notified: Mav, Vsmith, WikiProject United States
WP:URFA nomination

As noted on the talk page, this article is currently the oldest FA promotion listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and there are statements, using potential weasel words or quoting statistics, that should be cited. These are:

1. "The Havasupai and Hualapai are descended from the Cerbat and still live in the immediate area. The village of Supai in the western part of the current park has been occupied for centuries."
2. "The group was led by Hopi guides and, assuming they took the most likely route, must have reached the canyon at the South Rim, probably between today's Desert View and Moran Point."
3. "His report of an impassable barrier forestalled further visitation to the area for two hundred years."
4. "although there is little supporting documentation."
5. "that group successfully ran most of the canyon"
6. "Both the Powell and Dutton expeditions helped to increase interest in the canyon and surrounding region"
7. "Competition with the automobile forced the Santa Fe Railroad to cease operation of the Grand Canyon Railway in 1968 (only three passengers were on the last run). The railway was restored and service reintroduced in 1989, and it has since carried hundreds of passengers a day. Trains remained the preferred way to travel to the canyon until they were surpassed by the auto in the 1930s. By the early 1990s more than a million automobiles per year visited the park."
8. "only to sell it nine years later in order to start a long career as a Grand Canyon guide"
9. "The tourist flights over the canyon have also created a noise problem, so the number of flights over the park has been restricted."

There has been some attempt to add citations[14], but on conducting a spot check of one of these, I was unable to verify the article content[15]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review section mostly concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unresolved issues detailed in the review section. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, unfortunately ... is Mav gone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Mav edits only in spurts for several years now. I would hate to see one of the earliest Wikipedians leave but things change for us all. His work was my inspiration and if I had time I might make a great effort of this article and maybe someday I or others will but at this time maybe best to delist.--MONGO 04:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [16].

Notified: Wisdom89, BorgHunter, Fnlayson, WP Rock music, WP Canadian music

URFA nom

Talk page notified Jan 2015

This is a 2006 FA that has taken on uncited text and some MOS issues, and a prose tuneup might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to FARC, unfortunately. hard to believe there's not a soul out there interested in fixing it up. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main concern: verifiability. Some MoS and prose tuning needed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, no progress or interest. --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm working on some other articles currently, but just noticed this was in FARC and think it's a shame considering this is, well, the greatest rock band of all time. It looks like there are some citation needed and broken link issues in addition to the issues identified above, but hopefully I can find some time to improve it. I'm not sure if I'll prevent a delist, but hopefully it can at least work its way back up shortly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep this page posted on your progress; if you are able to attempt a save, I will list other issues as your time permits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I made a few minor edits for Canadian English, and will work on broken links next. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A week, two edits from Tonystewart14, no other progress-- delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't have quite enough time to make it 100% of the way back to FA in such a short time, but I will likely fix it up and bring it to peer review in a few months before another FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm late to the party, I did mean to comment on this, but I have got zero book sources for the band and at least two are essential sources for an FA, so without that, it's difficult to check stuff. I think delisting now and going for a GA would be a good compromise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. It might be good to clean it up and then go peer review > GA > FA after. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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