The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [1].
Several of the sources in the article would not be consider good enough for FAC now - top40 is an about.com site and probably not reliable, invisible-movement.net is not RS, Discogs is user-generated, and feelnumb and Los Apson look questionable. Additionally, rockinfreakapotamus is a fansite/fanzine of questionable reliable. There's an entire paragraph of uncited material about recording after the track listing. While personnel can usually be assumed to be from the album cover, but because it lists several "uncredited" people involved, I think that those can't really be assumed to be from the album cover. Finally, the VPRO interview is a WP:COPYLINK violation; the audio clip needs to be shortened per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples and currently lacks the contextual significance needed, and File:JohnNiandraLades1994.jpg has a very weak non-free rationale. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply
What is Broxvoort, Brian (1994). "John Frusciante Goes Over a Bridge." Rockinfreakapotamus. It appears to be http://thechilisource.com/rockinfreakapotamus/ but is not fully formatted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Alright, shortened the audio sample to comply with MoS, and now I think everything has been taken care of. Famous Hobo ( talk) 08:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
My only significant concerns right now are that " Wolk, Douglas. "Reviews". CMJ New Music Monthly. p. 42." is improperly formatted (we really need the date/issue for something like this) and that we'd be better off with the volume/issue number if possible for the Rockinfreakapotamus source to complete the citation. Zmbro - I know you've worked on similar music items before; do you have anything to add here? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [2].
I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's April 2021 notice, there is substantial uncited content in the article, failing 1c. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Like many (most?) of the National Park articles, this article uses very old, archived versions of NPS/USGS pages (that have probably been updated and need to be checked). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I've begun doing some of the work and I have to ask, what's our stance on using text from USGS verbatim? I know they aren't copyrighted but they are ancient and a lot of the article relies on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC) replyI've done a huge citation cleanup, and converted to SFNs. [3] I noticed that we are using a 1997 version of Harris, Tuttle & Tuttle, which is now on its 7th edition. Rockland Ash is still mentioned but not defined. I cannot judge whether the article is outdated or comprehensive: Jo-Jo Eumerus ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Jo-Jo, I am finding needs for updating and clarification; I'll add my review to a talk page section once I get off iPad, on real computer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [9].
Eighteen years after the article's FA promotion in 2004, the article has issues, which I previously raised in the article talk page—e.g. overly long plot synopsis, episode list containing no individual episode synopses, sourcing, and insufficient updates. So far since I raised my concerns, no edits have been made. Furthermore, the article is listed in
WP:URFA/2020A as the oldest remaining un-reviewed FA to this date (unless there are other articles from earlier years still tagged as FA). Improvements were discussed and (probably) made long before I raised the issues.
George Ho (
talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
Oh, and my comments at the talk page to this date received no replies. It's not because they're "vague" or anything like that. Probably because the talk page has been semi-active or less than that, AFAICS. Also, some of the article's editors are either banned (e.g. Eric Corbett) or no longer active. That's also why I brought the article here. George Ho ( talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
SnowFire I’m not sure what we’re looking at here, but if that’s an WP:ELNEVER (link to a violation of someone else’s copyright), it has to go. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) [10].
This article (2007 promotion) is predominantly sourced to ancient writers who, as the article explains, are considered to be of questionable reliability; modern scholarship is cited only sparingly. That's a problem for several reasons: it means that the article lacks the high-quality sourcing required by the criteria, but it also opens up the article to original research and synthesis issues. For instance, statements like "[Dio's claim] conflicts with the work of Eutropius" can't just be cited to Dio and Eutropius: secondary sources are needed to draw that sort of contrast. There seem to be further issues, for instance with reference formatting, but the sourcing (which has already resulted in the placement of an orange cleanup banner) is the primary problem. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No examples of modern scholarship that should be used are given, either here or on the talk page notification. The talk page notice is only three weeks old, and the cleanup banner was placed the next day by an IP. T8612, please see the FAR instructions; delist or keep are not declared in the FAR phase; FAR is not for automatic delisting. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) [11].
Issues concerning the article were raised one year ago, like possible original research, unverifiable info, inadequate coverage, writing quality, and sourcing. Since then, some improvements were made, but they happened within one month after the discussion last year. Subsequent edits were just cleanups or tiny content changes or something else.
Please note: I've not notified editors who've been inactive for more than one year, who made edits for a very short time, or who made minor edits. You may do so if willing to. George Ho ( talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Buidhe ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Oh, my. Realmaxxver you have partially converted the citations to sfns, but not completed the job. See WP:CITEVAR re changing citation style, which I’m not sure you should have done, but if doing it, it should be completed. We now have mixed citation style and harvref errors everywhere. Buidhe could you identify what text is uncited? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Whoops! I guess I did. Thanks, Wham2001, for correcting my errors. George Ho ( talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [12].
This is a 2010 promotion that hasn't really be updated since not long after promotion - curriculum is described as of 2009, technology material is from 2010 (and technology in education has changed massively since then), extracurricular activities is sourced to only stuff from 2010 or before, the student body and finances section is largely badly outdated, etc. This one will need a complete overhaul to still meet the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [13].
I have significant concerns about this 2006 promotion, most notably with respect to sourcing. The article directly cites Woodruff's autobiography far more than I'm comfortable with, but more importantly it relies very heavily on various tributes by Peter Morris, who, by his own admission, knew Woodruff "quite well professionally" and "obtained considerable information from" the aforesaid autobiography. As such, the grand majority of this article is sourced either to Woodruff or to his friends—hardly the sort of high-quality sourcing that the criteria demand. Additionally, SandyGeorgia has kindly added several additional sources to the further reading section: the fact that none of them are cited in the article raises comprehensiveness concerns as well. Since neither these issues nor the additional ones mentioned in the talk-page notice (e.g. formatting and original research) have been addressed at all, it's worth considering whether the article should retain its current status. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements in a couple of areas (most of it was removed by DrKay), has grammatical errors, outdated references, outdated section coverage (ie history since 1990s), and is lacking more recent scholarly literature. Noah Talk 16:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 5:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) [15].
As noted on the article's Talk Page nearly a year ago and not addressed, this Featured Article is in a poor state and has a number of issues which would require considerable effort to fix. The article was approved for FA status nearly fifteen years ago in 2008 when standards were more lax, and the Wikipedia user who created the article JayHenry has been inactive for over a decade. I shall list a small sample of the issues:
First, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-researched." The use of a single source—Nancy Milford's 1970 biography—for the overwhelming majority of the article is insufficient to say the least. Much scholarly research about Zelda Fitzgerald has been undertaken by Sally Cline, Matthew J. Bruccoli, Deborah Pike, James L. West III, and many others since Milford's 1970 biography, yet very little of this newer research appears in this article. Consequently, various claims in the article are over fifty years out-of-date. For example: The article recounts Milford's hypothesis that F. Scott Fitzgerald forced Zelda to rewrite her novel Save Me the Waltz. However, early drafts of Zelda's novel were later analyzed by scholars, and the alterations demanded by F. Scott Fitzgerald were determined to be fewer than Milford supposed (Bruccoli 1991, p. 4). "The revisions Scott finally demanded were actually relatively few, and that the disagreement was quickly resolved, with Scott recommending the novel to Perkins" (Bryer & Barks 2009, p. 164). Accordingly, the article needs to be rewritten both to update such outdated claims and to include a more diverse array of sources.
Second, the article gives a misleading impression of her life. Currently, the article gives the misleading impression that Zelda's final decades were akin to the doomed Dauphin of France. Yet much of Zelda's later years were not spent imprisoned in mental institutions. She actually lived in Montgomery and held a variety of jobs. She had only just returned to the mental institution where she died in a hospital fire. Furthermore, the article gives undue weight to Zelda's novel Save Me the Waltz and implies its failure forever crushed her spirits. Yet, after writing the novel, Zelda embarked upon a career as a playwright and wrote the stage play Scandalabra in Fall 1932 (Bruccoli 2002, p. 343). The play was produced and staged in Baltimore (see her daughter Scottie's preamble in The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald, 1991). She drafted a second novel Caesar's Things and painted dozens of beautiful paintings. Yet, whereas Save Me the Waltz is given an entire section, there is inadequate coverage of these other important undertakings.
Third, the article fails the FA criterion to be "comprehensive." The article omits many events in the life of the subject. For example: Despite using Nancy Milford's 1970 biography as its primary source, the article ignores pivotal events in Milford's biography, especially regarding Zelda's mental health deterioration. There are no detailed references to her attempts to kill both herself and her child (see Milford 1970, p. 156). These omissions give the misleading impression that Zelda was hospitalized without due reason. Even more odd is the article's implications about Zelda's institutionalization (i.e., "Scott placed her in..."
). As documented in her many biographies and her letters, Zelda often insisted on being hospitalized over Scott's objections (see Bruccoli 2002, p. 320: "Zelda insisted that she wanted to be hospitalized"). Scott objected because—as a miser—he didn't want to pay any hospital bills. Hence, it is peculiar how the article omits key events and phrases other events in a way that give a wrong impression.
Fourth, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-written." Its prose is neither engaging nor of a professional standard. Sentences are inserted haphazardly; events are presented outside of chronological order; the subject and her husband are often interchangeably and confusingly referred to as "Fitzgerald". The article needs a thorough prose audit by the Guild of Copy Editors.
Fifth, the article fails to convey why the subject is notable. Zelda Fitzgerald is often hailed by cultural historians as "the High Priestess of the Jazz Age," and yet the article does not adequately convey why she is historically notable other than as the wife of a famous author. By omitting or occluding many key events in her life, the article does not convey why so many scholars regard Zelda Fitzgerald to be a Jazz Age icon.
In sum, I do not believe this article should qualify as a Featured Article in its current state. This article needs a lengthy, painstaking and complete rewrite as its current iteration gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Zelda Fitzgerald's fascinating life. Given that the bulk of the article was written using a single source, this rewrite will be a colossal task as it needs to draw upon at least half-a-dozen reputable biographies in order to fulfill the FA criteria of being comprehensive and well-researched. — Flask ( talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [16].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of verifiability issues and lack of RS, as detailed on the talk page ( t · c) buidhe 08:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [17].
This 2003 promotion was last reviewed at FAR in 2007 during the push to add inline citations on older FAs. It has uncited text throughout, as well as dated text (see History section as but one example, but uses and production need updates), and a comprehensive literature survey is needed. Also, uses a press release for production forecast, and sources like this one. Marginal external links. I haven't examined the prose or MOS issues, but immediately noticeable are MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:ACCIM (images at bottom of section). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
SG Review:
I stopped there; these are samples only based on a quick look. Sourcing and citation needs attention, and datedness examined, before looking further at prose. Unless someone is willing/able to take on a top-to-bottom refreshing of this article, the nom should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [18].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it cites sources that are not high-quality RS. There are plenty of secondary sources on this incident, we should not be citing breaking news from 1885. ( t · c) buidhe 20:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [19].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large swaths of unsourced text. There is also plenty of more recent academic literature that needs to be incorporated. The article's history section is 20 years outdated. Surely something has happened since 2001. Lastly, the article needs a thorough copy edit to fix numerous Grammar issues. Noah Talk 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [20].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sections and bloating. The formatting of the references are also inconsistent, and I think some of the news sources can be replaced with academic sources, if found. Z1720 ( talk) 21:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [21].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the heavy reliance on company materials and also unreliable sources, per my talk page notice. Bumbubookworm ( talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [22].
I am nominating this featured article for review because a large part of the sourcing is to the university itself, or a blog called "Dartmo", so it lacks high-quality reliable and independent sources Bumbubookworm ( talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC) reply
I think the tag-bombing of this article should be reverted; Dartmo was covered in the FAC, and it appears to meet WP:SPS, and is not used to cite anything controversial or self-serving. Once that is done, I’ll do minor MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment the History section seems to end at 1906. Are there any events of note for this space in the past 100 years? Perhaps renovations, major damage from a weather event, or changes to the space? Z1720 ( talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
So delist because just from a quick link we've got some source-text problems. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC) reply