The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot ( talk) 1:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because:
The article was kept by DrKiernan via FACBot ( talk) 9:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC) [2].
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. Green C 02:27, 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? -- Green C 16:29, 25 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
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:
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
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
The article was delisted by Maralia via FACBot ( talk) 4:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [3].
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
The article was delisted by Maralia via FACBot ( talk) 4:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [4].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [5].
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
Quite a bit of work is needed to bring this up to current FA standards. Maralia ( talk) 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [6].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [7].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [8].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC) [9].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [10].
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:
Significant work is needed to bring this up to date and up to current standards. Maralia ( talk) 16:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [11].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [12].
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [13].
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:
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
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 5:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC) [16].
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