Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2025

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, WikiProject Florida, WikiProject Ethnic groups, Donald Albury, Moni3

I am nominating this featured article for review because...this article has been noticed by Buidhe since 2022 [2] that there were several unsourced statements and a lack of expansion by using scholarly sources (which is true). As of now, there are still visible several unsourced statements. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:36, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the message on the talk page left by Buidhe in 2022. I replied asking which statements were unsourced. And got no reply for like three years until this.

There are currently no citation needed tags in the article.

Please identify which statements need sourcing in the article. Please indicate which issues in the article require more scholarly sources. Thank you. Moni3 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some content at the beginning of the Seminole/Miccosukee section based on research I've done for other articles in the last few years. The prior content was sourced, but I've learned details I wasn't aware of a few years ago. I also know of some material about the early origins of the Seminole (see Ahaya#Seminole) which I'll try to incorporate. - Donald Albury 14:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something pointed out above, but the lead should be pared down, IMO. Feel free to argue with me about it. If you agree though and want me to do it I will. Just let me know. Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a quick and dirty method for finding unsourced statements, every fact should be cited no later than the end of the paragraph. Accordingly, if a paragraph doesn't end with a blue number, it ends with an unsourced statement. See for instance the end of "Prehistoric peoples" and the first paragraph of "Calusa". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The end sentence you are referring to: "From the Glades III culture developed two distinct tribes that lived in and near the Everglades: the Calusa and the Tequesta." is a linking sentence. It links to the next section where this statement is sourced multiple times.

General question to anyone: Must all paragraphs end with a citation? It was not so when I edited regularly. Moni3 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moni3: What a blast from the past to see your username. To your question: these days, yes. Basically, citations are now assumed to cover all the info prior to them until 1) there's another citation or 2) there's a paragraph break. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ed. Good to see you again. I'm a blast from the past, like Atari and the first plow. I like the first part of your reply. Thankful for the second but don't like it. Hope you're doing well. Moni3 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury: Donald, there are currently no unsourced statements in the article. I restored parts of the article and combined changes made to the Seminole/Miccosukee and Modern Times sections. If I removed something you or another editor added it was unintentional, and I apologize. If you think more work should be done on the article, let me know.

Also I have no idea how to fix that borked citation. If you or someone else does, please fix it. Wiki coding was the first thing I forgot about participating here. Moni3 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, that was a bit odd- the journal issue has a title and obviously the article has a title, but the cite template was setting the issue title to the "title" of the article, and the article title to the "contribution", which isn't a parameter for journal cites. Should be good now. --PresN 19:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PresN. Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moni3 and Donald Albury: - Is this article up to date on the literature on this topic? If so, I don't think I see any reason why this shouldn't be kept. Hog Farm _Talk 00:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're at a close without FARC point unless someone can point to a specific recent academic source that is being neglected. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 26 August 2025 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2025 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [3].

---

Notified: Video Games WikiProject

While the 2009 FA New Super Mario Bros. has structure and sourcing, it does not yet meet 1b. It lacks a dedicated "Legacy" or "Impact" section (crucial given the game’s role in revitalizing the 2D platforming genre). The development section works but is shallow compared to those in other featured articles. The prose in the plot section isn't the most encyclopedic tone, and the critical reception section could benefit from more synthesis and retrospective perspective. FARC? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any sources that claim it revitalized 2D platforming, or of any sources missing on the development history? While more info is nice on either, it may not be possible. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that this claim it "revitalized 2D platforming" is fairly unclear. Furthermore this is also a driveby nom that failed to raise issues on the talk page for discussion and possible fixing first as per policy. A user noted "FAR concerns" 5 years ago, but there wasn't an attempt by the nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On reading through the book Run and Jump: The Meaning of the 2D Platformer (2024) from The MIT Press, its not 100% accurate that this game "revitalized it". While I'm not sure what the current article on the genre says and I'm sure we can find articles that suggest the opposite, its not like the style went away. Its always existed in less commercial game terms through rom hacks, fan games, and independent work like Cave Story (2004). Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced this needs to go to FARC. I don't think it's obviously true that the game "Revitalized 2D platforming" - it was a very successful game for sure but I don't think the patient was ever dead. The other complaints seem vague. What's the problem with the sourcing? I suspect that the article could use some maintenance from retrospectives released in the past 10 years, sure, but that doesn't seem FARC-worthy. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, ill-defined FAR based on a claim that was since struck out. Other claims by nominator are too vague, and I do not see any sourcing or quality issues that would fall under a FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yovt: Could you elaborate on your concerns? See the comments above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2025 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2025 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [4].

---

Notified: ජපස, Praemonitus, Marisauna, Iantresman, Art LaPella, Vsmith, AP Astronomy, WP Physics, WP Color, WP Measurement, original notice in January 2023

Since the original notice in 2023, there have been periodic comments on the article's talk page regarding sourcing and other issues, including one from January raising possible OR concerns. There are 9 CN tags in the article. This is one of the last 48 remaining pre-2007s to be at the WP:URFA/2020 listing. Hog Farm _talk 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked over the History section using secondary sources and removed my OR concern. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided citations for all the remaining CN tags. jps (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and removed "broken anchors" template. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a note to the talk page, encouraging a review of Tong's textbook "Cosmology" which points out that even Hubble and Silpher, credited with discovering that redshift correlated with distance, did not understand that this implied an expanding universe. Apparently, they called it the "de Sitter effect" for a while; it took a while to figure out that galaxies are receding because the universe is expanding (and they were not the ones to figure this out). Science is non-linear. The obvious, canonically-accepted answer today is usually confused and muddled when first stated. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this interesting aside is probably best left explained at the expansion of the universe article. Redshift is an empirical phenomenon, and the interpretation that it is due to metric expansion deserves some economy on a page dedicated to the observable shifts of light rather than the history of how such shifts were interpreted. jps (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnjbarton - Do you have any further thoughts on this? Hog Farm _talk 21:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on Talk:Redshift#Redshift_as_the_"de_Sitter_Effect" as in my opinion this suggestion is for a minor addition to Redshift which is not well connected to the topic based on the sources we have. It's more about Hubble's Law and in any case not a showstopper for FAR. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• " although the word does not appear unhyphenated until about 1934, when Willem de Sitter used it." - I'm concerned that this bit, which is only sourced to the '34 de Sitter paper, is original research
• "There are several websites for calculating various times and distances from redshift, as the precise calculations require numerical integrals for most values of the parameters" - of the four examples provided: are the UCLA ones the same webpage or am I missing something? And is the Kempner personal website a major player in this, or is this some sort of spammy link?
• "As a diagnostic tool, redshift measurements are one of the most important spectroscopic measurements made in astronomy." - claim of something as "most important" should have a source
• There is a page needed tag that should be addressed
• "at a redshift of z = 8.6, corresponding to 600 million years after the Big Bang." - are these detailed numbers supported by the immediately preceding source?
• "The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), is ongoing as of 2013 and aims to measure the redshifts of around 3 million objects" - is this still ongoing? I checked the cited source and it refers to 2014 in the future tense

This is in better shape than it was. Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments by Jenhawk777

While I'm aware of this topic, my understanding of it stops with general physics at the college sophomore level. I am completely intimidated, but I will do a review anyway with the idea that my ignorance gives me the ability to see whether this article communicates well to the average non-scientist sophomore.

The first paragraph of the lead made my head explode. In fact, I have to say, I don't like the entire lead, pretty much at all, in any way. I don't think it summarizes the article well, and it includes too much technical detail at the same time. I could be wrong. I don't review science articles much. But from my ignorant pov, the concept section was pretty clear, and therefore aimed at people like me, while the lead seems to assume readers have already read that explanation - or have some background in physics. As if the body is aimed at one group while the lead is aimed at another. Does anyone else see this? Is this not a problem? Perhaps I just don't understand the unique requirements of science articles. I should find out before going further. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has two sometimes conflicting goals: introduction and summary. Ideally the lead has content representative of the entire article but starts with a general-level paragraph. But to summarize the entire article may require covering more advanced level content.

In this case I don't think the lead is appropriate as a summary. Let me give a try. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: - is this (Jenhawk's comments and my list of a few things from May above) ready for a re-review? Hog Farm _Talk 22:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the intro and it can be reviewed. Are you talking about the items under FARC section? (I prefer {{cn}} tags FWIW). Johnjbarton (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton: - It looks like Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction actually addressed most of my FARC comments back in May. I've dropped in a CN tag for one statement; I'm always hesitant to add CNs to featured articles as some original FA nominators do not take kindly to that. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that sentence. I looked for a source to support it back in May and didn't find one that said that exact thing explicitly, rather than letting the reader infer it. I let it slide and moved on to other stuff, since it didn't seem terribly important. But now that attention has been called to it again, I think trimming it is best. It read as rather boilerplate in tone, and moreover, it was misplaced: a remark of such generality doesn't belong at the end of a subsection about a particular genre of observations. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is in good enough shape to be closed as keep. Hog Farm _Talk 20:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per HF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I had a good read through two months ago, and while the subject matter is well above my level, I can see nothing concerning enough to bother me: keep. DrKay (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2025 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2025 (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, 30 August 2025 (UTC) [5].

---

Notified: Giggy, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Media franchises, Vital articles/Level/5/Arts and everyday life

As noted by Buidhe and Boneless Pizza!, this 2008 FA contains unsourced statements, unreliable sources, and substandard prose, while additionally failing to survey high-quality academic sourcing available on the topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC. Sourcing concerns remain. Only minor edits since this has been opened. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above. Hog Farm _Talk 16:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist concerns remain and progress seems to be stalled. Z1720 (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2025 (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) 15:29, 30 August 2025 (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 at 14:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

DELIST for housekeeping This article was redirected on 15 August:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) (2nd nomination)

And removed from WP:FA by RobertG

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_articles&diff=prev&oldid=1306045710

And added to WP:FFA by DrKay

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Former_featured_articles&diff=prev&oldid=1306058738

But there is no FAR page to add to Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2025, and that affects the numbers at WP:FAS.

If @FAR coordinators: will close and list this FAR in the FAR August archive, I will do the articlehistory corrections so FACBOT (@Hawkeye7:) doesn't have to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FACBot only engages when the {{FARClosed}} is supplied. So leave it off. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (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) 4:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC) [6].

---

Notified: Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Real4jyy, Serendipodous, WP Astronomy, noticed in August 2021

This 2008 promotion is one of the oldest notices remaining at WP:FARGIVEN. There are substantial amounts of uncited text an unresolved debate from April regarding the accuracy of a statement. This should be saveable, but as the concerns were originally raised nearly four years ago, here we go to FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note -- this shouldn't influence the outcome of the FAR, but what needs to happen if the article is demoted: Dwarf planet is a featured topic, and WP:NCASTRO explicitly relies on that fact (the guideline for whether or not an object should be considered a dwarf planet on Wikipedia depends on whether it is included in the featured topic). Compare the discussion here and here. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 The notice in August 2021 resulted in a discussion with responses from 2021-2023, Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 8#Featured article status. Quote from there (CMD, 21 December 2023): Significant work was put into this article following my comment above, much by Kwami. Better to raise/tag any individual issues with a fresh look, rather than going into FAR.

As for the recent unresolved accuracy debate, which was largely the work of Nrco0e and myself, I agree it's an issue, but that's not something we can solve on Wikipedia. What we can do is decide how to handle the unclear situation, and I'd be grateful for additional input on that. Renerpho (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think we can resolve it without violating WP:SYNTH. Serendi^podous 06:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: Kwami has since helped resolve it partially, at least in the article lede. The discussion about what to do with the "History" and "Name" sections is ongoing. I think they're both bloated, and have said as much. Renerpho (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the passage to remove the disputed text. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Graeme Bartlett The images do not have alt= text. Isn't this a requirement for FA? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: This is part of WP:FLCR, but not WP:FACR. Renerpho (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will recommend delist as it appears there is no intention to improve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. What I said had nothing to do with improving the article. You asked about the requirements for FA, I answered that question. Renerpho (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I found your response so startling that I asked again for clarification at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria. The discussion linked there, and the multiple discussions and RfC's linked therein, confirm what I thought. Alt-text is not part of the featured article criteria, and (from the 2019 RfC) there is consensus against requiring the use of alt-text for featured articles, but rough consensus that it should be encouraged when possible.

It is noted in that RfC that good alt-text is difficult to write, and I agree. It is also noted that accessibility is important, and I agree with that as well. I don't know if you consider the matter of alt-text to be the deciding factor why Dwarf planet should be delisted. It's not even been mentioned before. Renerpho (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was making assumptions, that may not be correct, that no one actually wants to improve the article. Thanks to Renerpho for answering the question. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of § History of the concept is a bit crufty. It relies on pop science and primary sources. I think it could be trimmed or condensed. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There are still 8 CN tags. Move to FARC. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't say I've got much to counter. I'm in no position to resolve most of those, and it seems I have overestimated interest in the article. Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is very much @Kwamikagami:'s article. He knows it better than anyone. So it's very much his call. Serendi^podous 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i haven't kept up with recent revelations on the history of the concept, and I've got a lot of other things on my plate right now that I've been neglecting and that take priority over wp — kwami (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - sourcing issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Concerns remain, work has stalled. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2025 (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) 14:41, 23 August 2025 (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) 4:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [7].

---

Notified: User talk:RetiredDuke, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

RetiredDuke (talk · contribs) reported on issues in April, including missing citations, fancruft, and unreliable sources. Here's what I noticed:

Content

• "Cast" is very choppily written and has a [citation needed].
• "Animation" section is too short and has a "better source needed" tag.
• "Ratings and popularity" has one unsourced chunk of text.
• Below that is a giant-ass awards table which should probably be split off or condensed. Said table is also unsourced.
• "Home media" has multiple [citation needed] tags.
• The entire "Merchandise" section is just a bunch of lists.

Sourcing

• Many of the sources are either the episodes themselves, social media about the show, or DVD commentary. This in and of itself is not bad, there's just too much of it.
• Citation 18 (Denver Post) needs a page number.
• Citation 21 "Credits from various episodes" is vague and should be specified or removed.
• Citations 36, 50, 55, 59, et al.: is Toon Zone a reliable source?
• Citations 38-41 are just random clickbait listicles and should not be in the article.
• Citation 42 (Baltimore Sun) needs a page number.
• Citation 54 (Keyframe) appears to be some sort of self-published directory listing.
• Citation 60 (Freemont Abbey Arts) is missing a work/publisher credit.
• Citations 64 et al.: is TV Shows on DVD a reliable source?
• Citation 70 is an Amazon listing and should be removed.
• Most of the video games are cited solely to Game Rankings (is this an RS?) or other databases. I feel like this should be traded out for something better or removed if there isn't much to say about the games beyond that they existed.
• Same with the albums. If there's nothing other than an Allmusic listing, this can probably go too. Not every promotional tie-in needs to be noted if there's nothing to say about it.

There are also stability issues, as users keep re-inserting vague claims about its quality, most of which are sourced to Wordpress blogs or unreliable-looking listicles.

As a 2007-era FA, this one has gathered up a lot of cruft, especially after the recent reboot and continued '90s nostalgia that permeates every corner of the Internet. (Spoilers: I never liked the show, but that has nothing to do with the FAR.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Removed Amazon and AllMusic references, also one bit of informal language ("farmed out"). All other issues still persist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToonZone: "this website is a not for profit fansite" Early 00s e-mags can be fine provided they were published by a real publisher not self-published. This source should be removed entirely.

For a 90s era TV show, the highest quality sources are print media: magazines, newspapers, and books. Some of the sources are pretty good, and the book by Sandler published by a university press should be cited more often in the article. A lot of the newspaper coverage can be found on online archives like newspapers dot com.

Someone added "becameing one of the best cartoons of the 1990s ever made" and no one else noticed it. The closer I look, the more problems arise.

Too many of the images were in-universe with lofty descriptions, and I have removed many of them and replaced them with out of universe images of show staff and locations. It's written too much from a fan perspective with fanwiki stylings. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-wrote sections, trimmed down sources and removed the Toon Zone source entirely, so one of the most major sources of the article has been replaced with CN tags, meaning it's likely won't pass FA review and will need a complete re-write. The page also heavily cites the show itself, or press releases from the show, or DVD extras and commentary from the show, meaning it's leaning too heavily into primary sources rather than third party sources. I also noticed pages for Yakko, Wakko, and Dot which almost entirely cite the show itself and should probably be merged into here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to the characters being merged/redirected, as a quick glance at each article shows little real-world notability or secondary coverage. But that can be its own discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote that was commented out attributed to "TV Guide Vol. 45 1997", which is actually a decent quote from the show runner but it lacks any details about the article name or author. Going to Google Books I can confirm the quote is real and contained within TV Guide's Vol 45 collection, but it doesn't allow previews thus I can't gleam more info from it.

I shudder to ask: is The Ringer a reliable source? I'm more iffy on modern day web-based sources than 90s era print ones. Because if it's not, then another major source of the article needs to be jetisoned. 20:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Harizotoh9: I'm not going to vote on whether this article deserved to be demoted from its FA status or not, but I will say that The Ringer was founded by former ESPN journalist Bill Simmons and does employ writers like Andy Greenwald who have worked on publications such as The Washington Post newspaper and Entertainment Weekly magazine. The Ringer has been used in FA-status articles such as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Empire Strikes Back that have been promoted as recently as 2022. I think it a fine source depending on how its being used within the context of the article. That is, if there aren't other sources available, or if The Ringer does provide some extensive background of the production of the series.

--Birdienest81talk 21:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks I'm just not very familliar with that source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For stability, would it be uncalled for to just block IPs from editing the page since they have a habit of including low quality information? Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It'd help the fancruft, but it'd certainly be another strike against this staying FA. I personally think there are a million issues with the article as is, so we might as well semi-protect at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be permanently semi-protected and still be FA if they attract vandalism, such as Anne Frank. The fans are not adding vandalism per se, but it's such poor quality text and sourcing that it's tantamount to it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, this article has now been temporarily semi-protected due to persistent sockpuppetry. We can also try expanding the reception section with critic reviews from sources like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (all of which are reliable sources, and probably split the awards table into a separate article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Variety has a pretty good online archive, but not so much Hollywood Reporter. None of their 90s coverage exists online it seems. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: this article probably shouldn't have made it to FA to begin with in 2007, and its current FA status is more of a relic of a bygone era. The 2007 version of the article is mostly cited to the show itself, press releases, DVD commentary, or fan sites. It had 57 references, and something like 14 references to third party sources. Sourcing has been considerably improved, but not to retain the FA status. It should lose its status, then someone should bring it to GA quality, then try FA again. 21:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per my concerns. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per my above concerns. It has also been so heavily re-written that almost nothing from the original 2007 version remains, thus this article should be subject to a new review process. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Agreed with the above concerns regarding this article's sourcing and structuring. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:30, 3 August 2025 (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) 14:07, 16 August 2025 (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) 4:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [8].

---

Notified: Geuiwogbil, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Rome, WikiProject Sociology, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Human rights, 2020-05-03 2025-05-31

This is the oldest article listed at WP:FARGIVEN, with concerns first brought up in 2020. Since then, some concerns have been resolved, some added, and some continue. Work seems to have stalled, so I think it is time to finally bring this article here to finalise fixing up the article and determine if it meets the FA criteria. Here are, from what I can gather, the remaining issues identified on the article's talk page:

• There are concerns that the article relies too heavily on primary sources. This concern was addressed, but I am not sure if it has been resolved.
• A couple uncited statements in the article,
• Large block quotes are frequently used in the article, which might go against WP:SS,
• The article, at over 10,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. I think there is text that can be spun out or removed as too detailed from the article. WP:REDEX might help, as well as summarising quotes.

That's the list. Looking forward to reading editor thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements for over 2 years. DrKay (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The unsourced statement so far as I can tell is simply a single image ref needed for a map. I'd like to hear what editors more familiar than me have to say about the article status here - pinging Caeciliusinhorto, Iazyges, Aza24, and UndercoverClassicist who were all involved at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1 back in 2023 - do y'all think this is saveable or is delisting warranted? Hog Farm _Talk 02:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's one or two more (e.g. In Lyon in 177, it was only the intervention of civil authorities that stopped a pagan mob from dragging Christians from their houses and beating them to death.), but a bigger problem is statements cited only to primary sources, such as Diocletian was surrounded by an anti-Christian clique. On a quick scan there aren't many of these, but the citation style is tricky to work with and uses a lot of multi-cites mixing primary and secondary material, which makes it tricky to be sure without a labour-intensive check how far the secondary sources actually do support everything in the article text.

  Seperately, I would second the concerns about size (to which I'd add that the narrative is quite tricky to follow, at least to me) and large blockquotes, though on their own I wouldn't say that these are reason to delist. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The large block quotes seem mostly inoffensive; the two edict excerpts in the "The Peace of Galerius and the Edict of Milan, 311–313" section seem particularly solid inclusions. The Gibbon, at least, seems more helpful in totality than summarized; I would say the Arnobius and/or Diocletian excerpts are the most obvious candidates for summarizing instead.

  • It seems like all three see also entries should be included in the article somehow
  • At just a few hundred words over 10k, the length seems easily addressable.

  More citation issues:

  • Beginning of Italy and Spain section seems either uncited or solely cited to Eusebius
  • Also uncited: but in the East progressively harsher legislation was devised; the edict was firmly enforced in Maximian's domain until his abdication in 305, but persecutions later began to wane when Constantius succeeded Maximian and were officially halted when Maxentius took power in 306.
  • uncited: to declare himself emperor. On 28 October 306, Maxentius convinced the Praetorian Guard to support him, mutiny, and invest him with the purple robes of the emperor. Maxentius did not permit religious freedom for Christians in the realm or the restitution of confiscated property. The Great Persecution continued until 311 when Constantine arrived at Rome's gates and defeated Maxentius with an army only half as big. Maxentius was such a tyrant that the Romans would not open the gates for his defeated, retreating army, but opened them only for the conqueror Constantine.
  • In general the article seems more than salvageable, just not sure if there are interested editors. – Aza24 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist There have been no major edits in several months to address concerns, and many issues have been highlighted above. I just don't think there's the interest to bring this article back to meet the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2025 (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) 14:08, 16 August 2025 (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) 4:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC) [9].

---

Notified: User talk:Hotwiki, Notified: User talk:TarnishedPath, Notified: User talk:Rhodes00, Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, 1, 2, 3, 4,

This 2005 FA BLP has some glaring prose and quality of writing issues; with several of the very long paragraphs having some fancruft issues and too-close paraphrasing from journalists and music critics. And generally the article, like Ms. Minogue, is in a very different state than it was when it was listed as a FA. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PHShanghai, did you discuss these issues on the article's talk page before nominating here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've discussed all of these issues on the talk page for the last year or so. This is the most recent discussion, but the talk page discussions have been going since late 2023. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also may I add. @Nikkimaria:, this FAR listing wasn't discussed in Talk:Kylie Minogue when PHShanghai added a FAR template into the article in April 2025. Personally speaking, I thought it came out of nowhere.[10] There were talk pages discussions which directly involved PHShanghai in March 2025, and those discussions were about lead section changes, not about putting the article for FAR. Hotwiki (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the requirement to discuss concerns was met; concerns relevant to the FA criteria appeared on the talk page going back years. And at this point, while I appreciate your position, this FAR has been open for several months. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this shouldn't be too hard. I'm working on Beyonce at the moment but i'll start this soon. 750h+ 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

750h+, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hmm. i'll see. the article doesn't currently look that bad and i think some paragraph-size reduction and quote/close-paraphrasing-removal could make this better. i'll see what i can do within the next month. 750h+ 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. It's quite a long career and there's still a lot of bloat to unload. I feel that the lead and the prose about her career post-2010 (when it was last reassessed for FA) can be improved the most; there is much lacking in the writing quality there, not very encyclopedic. The lead is very bloated but fails to mention important parts of her career (like her hit single which revitalized her career; Padam Padam.) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As it is strenous for me to cut down on the bloat/fancruft of this article without facing unconstructive reverts and edit warring from the primary editor of this page, and the other editor who suggested editing may seem to be busy working on Beyonce, would a move to FARC help bring more voices and opinions on the current quality on this page? No edits have been made so far to address my concerns. Thank you PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to attempt working on this article to fix the issues that have been raised by a couple people here since I have free time now. We'll see what happens. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should perhaps discuss this in Talk:Kylie Minogue to avoid issues again, as you were involved in issues (such as posting misinformation and original research) and incident reports when it comes that article. In your recent edit, you made it sound like the lead section isn't good enough for "Wikipedia standards".[11] Yet when you brought this article up in the past in Wikipedia:Third opinion - [12], the commentor said your revision wasn't an improvement. Hotwiki (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are trying to start an edit war with me, it's not going to work. As any possible change to this article is going to be reverted, I would consider this article not worthy of restoring to FA quality standards anymore and filled with too much bloat. It is impossible to fix the low quality prose and paraphrasing without running into personal issues with the top editor of this page. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This was my response to you in Talk:Kylie Minogue[13] Who is going to revert me for reverting your undiscussed changes in the lead section? As far I can see in this page, you're the only one here actively trying to propose a change as if the article is poorly written. You've been edit warring in that article since 2023 and you raised so many issues (such as misinformation/drastically changing the lead so many times) which were discussed in the talk page numerous times. The article was already brought up to RFC, Dispute Resolution, ANI and most recently in Third Opinion, by March 2025. Someone from Third Opinion, flat out said your revisions were not an improvement[14]. After you didn't get your way in Third Opinion, you suddenly put this up for FAR[15]. I was waiting for other editors to comment in this page, and read what things needed to be change. Only 750h+ commented about possible changes/improvements, but they didn't edit the article since they made a comment here in FAR. I only commented today, since you made numerous changes to the lead section, without discussing those changes in the talk page for the umpteenth time. You know this was the issue in the past, and you're back at it again. Hotwiki (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please feel free to rewrite the article to restore the prose and reference quality back to Featured Article quality. Regards, PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have any issue with the current revision of the article. I also have no say and interest about keeping its status as a "featured article". You messaged me directly about this FAR discussion, back in April 2025. I didn't engage at that time as you and I, were already involved in so many talk page discussion, RFC, Dispute resolution, ANI reports and Third Opinion discussion regarding this article of Kylie Minogue. I was waiting for more editors to comment. I only commented about this months later, when you made numerous lead section changes - without discussing them in the talk page. You are very aware that your numerous lead section changes were issues in the past (in that article), and you should be avoiding doing the same thing that already caused issues/tension. Hotwiki (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. Regards, PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You really should stop doing this kind of conflict and throwing the own card again, when you clearly can't compromise in the first place regarding the issue you were/are involved with in that article in the first place. We were already warned in ANI, about facing "interaction ban" if we keep this up. So stop. Hotwiki (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of you should please take interpersonal concerns to either your own talk pages, or if necessary ANI; this isn't the place for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include prose and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• unfortunately i have a lot of projects I'd like to work on and this isn't one of them. would be sad to see such an article get delisted, though i just don't have the capacity to work on this. @PHShanghai:, sorry about the delay, i was working on Beyonce, however i think i am done with that article and it should be going towards FAC soon. i'll do a top to bottom rewrite of this, and will start working on the lead today. 750h+ 13:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as proposer. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per nom. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 06:54, 11 August 2025 (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) 14:08, 16 August 2025 (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) 5:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC) [16].

---

Notified: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Scientology, WikiProject Television, WikiProject The Simpsons Noticed: 2021-04-08 2025-06-13

I am nominating this featured article for review because the lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article, the "Cultural references" section seems to be a list of trivia about the episode's references to other pop culture, which I do not think is encyclopedic, the "Reception" section does not include any reviews of the episode from when it originally aired and falls into the "X said Y" pattern. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside one broken BBC link, the only source I'm questioning is the SNPP/Simpsons Archive one. The sourcing doesn't seem terrible here, outside an over-abundance of primary sources.I do agree that the lack of contemporary reviews, and the listy nature of pop culture references, are both troubling aspects of the article. I think it might be salvageable if those are added, but I don't know what the best sources would be for them.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC: No significant edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include prose and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - not the furthest away, but I do agree that there are definite issues here which have not been resolved. Hog Farm _Talk 02:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist It's not far from meeting the criteria, but the "Reception" section needs improvements. Work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2025 (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) 15:41, 9 August 2025 (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) 5:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [17].

---

Notified: Hurricanehink, WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject District of Columbia

As noted in December 2021 by Hurricane Noah, there is quite a bit of academic literature ([18], [19])which is not utilised in this article, contravening WP:FACR's requirement for comprehensivity and high-quality sourcing.

Alternatively, it could also be argued that this article is too detailed, with lots of coverage from contemporary news articles or disaster reports, and that readers would be better served by merging this into the main Hurricane Isabel article.

Either way, some improvement should probably be done to retain FA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC: No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delist pending further input from the hurricanes project - I'm underwhelmed by the sourcing here; it's almost entirely primary source government reports. Hog Farm _Talk 02:47, 31 July 2025 (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) 15:11, 2 August 2025 (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) 5:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [20].

---

Notified: WP:VG, User:Masem, User:AI83tito

Pre-FAR comments here and here. The article definitely needs a rewrite given the 10+ years since its promotion and the legacy of the game in the landscape. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying I'm going to try to save this article, just gonna poke around, do some cleanup, and maybe I'll give it a serious go. Side note, I could have sworn the video game project advised only including 10 reviews in the review table. Not a rule per say but just advice for editors. As it stands there are 12 reviews in the table (although the TouchArcade review should really go in it's own section regarding the iOS release). Famous Hobo (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing much interest in clean up for this one, so moving to FARC might be the right call? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include organization and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist I've made improvements and I think the structure is a lot better, but there's a lot more work to be done and it's not going to happen in the timeframe of the FAR at least on my end. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist, I trust David Fuchs's judgment on video game article quality. Hog Farm _Talk 02:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Per David. GamerPro64 04:48, 31 July 2025 (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) 15:12, 2 August 2025 (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) 5:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC) [21].

---

Notified: Fastfission [22], WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, [23]

I am nominating this 2006 featured article for review due to the issues that I raised over three weeks ago on the talk page, which have remained wholly unanswered. These include:

• A lead that is unbalanced and gives undue weight to certain aspects of his work, like the "Alarm Clock model bomb", and has potential NPOV issues like the messianic complex claim.
• A sometime excessive reliance on quotes, as in the 'Decision to drop the bombs' subsection (i.e. not summary style).
• Sources that simply aren't FA quality, like Collider or DailyTech, and other content remains unsourced.
• The sequence and division subsections seems sporadic, and not as well-organized as fellow physicist Leo Szilard's article for contrast.
• For instance, his "volatile personality" is highlighted in the lead. There could be a 'Personality' section (like on John Ford's article) that might more cohesively integrate material like the Fonda heart attack allegation in the "Three Mile Island" section. Further, all nuclear research could be integrated under a single section? And so on. There are obvious undue weight issues when elevating something to its own section as well.
• The prose is simply lacking in many places.

Teller is an interesting subject, and I would like to polish this article but simply do not have the time to do him justice. ~ HAL333 22:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues raised in the review section include lead, over-quoting, sourcing, layout, and prose. DrKay (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Concerns remain. Article seems to use a lot of block quotes, which can be in WP:SS. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per HAL333. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2025 (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) 15:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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