The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is bloated, with numerous paragraphs per section. The article also has unreliable sources (including IMDB) and inconsistent formatting of references. No edits have been made since I posted the notice. Z1720 ( talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Okay, so looking at this this isn't in horrible shape, but there's still some stuff that needs worked on here
During a copyedit, here are some questions and requests for clarification:
This takes me to "1958–1966: Film screenplays and adaptations". I'll continue this later, but feel free to fix the above in the meantime. Z1720 ( talk) 04:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
Gonna keep going,
Those are my comments. Z1720 ( talk) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was procedurally kept by Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC). reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because a long standing RfC discussion, which has now been long awaiting closure, has resulted in edits which mean that it loses (imo) many of the characteristics of an FA (to which status I was amongst those active in bringing it). I would ask that the FA status be removed for the present, and then the article can then be resubmitted for FA when the discussion is resolved (whatever the outcome). The article gets >1m. views per year, and should not I think be presented as an FA in these circumstances, as it is not representative of the WP standards for such articles. Smerus ( talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I do not seek to use FAR for dispute resolution: it is only that some areas (eg. note 6 in the article) which have been added during the discussion are way out of FA standards, and cannot be adjusted while the RfC is going on without further edit arguing. I specifically asked above for a suspension of FA status, as there seems to be no way of withdrawing the FA standard apart from the review process. But if editors feel that suspension is not possible and FAR should only be moved after RfC resolution, so be it. I just hope in that case that someone will soon take on the task of resolving it. However the RfC is resolved it will need a rewrite. -- Smerus ( talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Nikkimaria, I guess in the present situation it would be best to hope that the RfC will be soon resolved. In the light of the closing decision the article is then likely to need some rewriting and I will then submit it to FAR in the hope that the revision will still meet FA standards. Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Nikkimaria, there is some (peaceful so far) editing and discussion going on at present in the wake of the RfC. The article needs updating in various other ways, including listing and format of sources etc. I estimate about two weeks to complete this work and to ensure that nothing flares up again. Then it would be helpful if other editors could take a look and be satisfied that it still meets FA. I will post again here when ready. With thanks,-- Smerus ( talk) 22:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [2].
I have a number of concerns about this article's compliance with the FA criteria. First and foremost (as pointed out by Hog Farm), many places are entirely unsourced; this presents serious concerns under criterion 1c. Additionally, some of the sources that do exist are of questionable reliability: many are quite old (two are from 1710, while others are from 1847, 1859, 1891, 1901, 1915, 1919, 1923, etc.). The article is also nearly impossible to understand without a graduate-level mathematics education (some of this is inevitable given the topic, but more "engaging" prose is likely required nonetheless), and a quick perusal yields a self-reference ("as described elsewhere in this article") and numerous unnecessary duplinks. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has an extensive further reading section, which can be incorporated into the article. There are no post-2011 sources, and a Google Scholar search produced some recent sources that might be included, and there might be others if an extensive search of other databases is conducted. Z1720 ( talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm concerned that chunks of this article may be dated.
The description content looks like it has good bones, but this is going to require a top-to-bottom workthrough to make sure that everything is up to date. Hog Farm Talk 16:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [4].
I am nominating this featured article for review because per the past talk page notice and the discussion when it was on the main page, it is not comprehensive and is missing sources, has self-published sources and the stats are out of date Bumbubookworm ( talk) 03:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it does fails different criterias for a Featured Article. The lede alone looks to fail 2.a as it looks so bare. Also the Plot and Characters section does not have any sources behind it, which they may need to GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. Lead length is personal preference and this is within the band of acceptable range (this coming from someone who likes a much lengthier lead). But if you want it longer then how much work is it to bulk it up a bit yourself? The Daily Mirror removal is possibly necessary, as HumanxAnthro summarises well, but that doesn't require an FAR. A first read from top to bottom and skim of the references doesn't leave me with any particular urge to remove the gold star. Notice that the permanent dead links are not a problem because the references also work as references to the same articles in the print newspapers. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Delist: There have been no edits to the article since late-April, concerns are still ongoing. Z1720 ( talk) 13:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Potential sources are here, here, this is listed as reliable at WP:RSP, here, and someone who knows where to look better than me might find more. As thin as this article is, it's likely that those sources may be useful. And there's still the two blatantly unrelaible Sun sources. Delist for now unless someone steps up, but given that there have been no human edits as of when I write this since December 2020, I frankly don't think anyone cares. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [6].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been maintained to standards. In places, it is outdated. Some info in the lede isn't repeated in the body (f.i. having over 25% of students identify as hispanic). There are problems with citations (heavy reliance on primary sources, sporadic uncited text) and citation formatting (all caps, bare urls). Depending on how deep the problems with outdatedness go, this might be salvable. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some editors were fixing up the article in mid-June, but work might have stalled. A quick skim reveals many uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs. "Online and regional learning programs" section should be expanded or merged with another section. Z1720 ( talk) 13:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Question: Is a featured article review opened with an eye toward improving an article to keep it featured or with an eye toward stripping the featured article status so there are fewer of these elite entries? With the former, editors would come together to improve the article and make it the best it can be, thus improving Wikipedia as a whole. With the latter, editors would merely talk about what's wrong with it and invest no time in correcting the deficiencies. While I worked with others to see this article elevated to featured status, I honestly don't care what becomes of it. I'm just trying to better understand this process. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [7].
Myriad issues were raised at the talk page by RetiredDuke three months ago and do not appear to have gotten any engagement. They include excessive length and undue focus on certain areas, inadequate sourcing, and puffery. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Cultural groups on campus include the Asian Students Association... paragraph, and both organizations that I've randomly checked, Blue Devils United and Mi Gente, are not mentioned in the links provided. So I suspect there's some of "I'm familiar with this subject so I'll just edit it to my knowledge" going on, that needs to be thoroughly checked. RetiredDuke ( talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: There seems to be some edits to this article; if those editors are willing to improve it, this article might be "kept". After a quick skim, some of my concerns include: too many images and MOS:SANDWICH happening throughout the article, some references are bare URLs or don't provide enough information, unsourced paragraphs, sections that are too short and WP:PROMO material that is not notable. I am willing to conduct a thorough copyedit if someone will respond to concerns I raise. Is that person you? Post below! Z1720 ( talk) 20:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Delist: Nikkimaria did a major cleanup in mid-June, but concerns are still present in the article about unsources statements and too much detail. Z1720 ( talk) 01:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [8].
This 2004 promotion was last reviewed in 2006 and frankly isn't up to current standards. The lead is mainly background information, not a summary of the article contents. That background content is not in the body, which then pops up suddenly with Trafalgar going on, without any context besides the lead. There is also uncited text, as well as iffy web sources, such as the Flags of the World Website, a blogspot link, and wikiquote. This is fixable, but it's gonna need a good bit of attention. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Oof, looks like a ton of work to do. I will make a background section for the background information in the lead. Blue Jay ( talk) 14:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) I made a background section and extended the prose a bit. As for the sources, I'm not really to sure what to do with them... Blue Jay ( talk) 12:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [9].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple uncited paragraphs throughout the article and the sources in "General references" should be consulted and used as references in the article or deleted. No major improvements have been posted since the notice was placed in April. Z1720 ( talk) 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC) reply
I would love to assist in saving this rather ... ravaged article's FA status. Is there any sort of plan or task-list to follow? Knowing the answer is no, can we make one?
I should warn of my inexperience and lack of expertise, as I am, in fact, new to this sort of project. I merely hope that:
Horsesizedduck ( talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC) reply
At this point, I feel like I must recommend that the article lose its FA status. I'm more than willing to continue spending time on it, but, as it stands, the article does not deserve to keep its stripes while I presumably take ages to iron it out. Horsesizedduck ( talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [10].
Issues are still present in the article with minimal editing since then so here we are. ( t · c) buidhe 05:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) replyThis older Featured Article does not meet the current FA criteria. There are several unsourced paragraphs, the "notable people" section is almost completely unsourced, and I could find trivia in the article. Virtually all links are from 2007/8. The sourcing seems weak for a Featured Article; for instance mightymac.org and grandhotel.com seem promotional and not high-quality. Article needs work and I see similar concerns directly above.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [11].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs to be updated with post-2008 events, the lede needs a severe trim, and MOS:SANDWICHING needs to be fixed. Z1720 ( talk) 15:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [12].
This FA, last reviewed in 2006, has both a good bit of uncited text, and does not seem to be complete. The article does not discuss plant/animal life on the mountain, which seems relevant, and does not state if any further geological activity from the volcano is expected. Also, at least on my system, there is massive MOS:SANDWICH issues with images thrown in there haphazardly. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments from Graeme - some easy to fix things:
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:31, 13 March 2021 (UT Thanks for quick response
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Missing topics due to see also reply
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply
As much as I like these old featured articles, this article feels more like a GA than an FA to me. I will do some fixing:
Started section on ecology, including disturbance ecology and biological legacies. Started section on future hazards. Both of these sections can be fleshed out further (either by me or other authors). — hike395 ( talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
@ SandyGeorgia: --- could you kindly list more of the extensive issues? I addressed all of the comments from Graeme, and added (some) material re ecology and future hazards, which Hog Farm thought was lacking. I can certainly do more research and add more material on ecology, but if you think there are other large problems, I'd rather spend my limited WP time addressing those. — hike395 ( talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Something I noticed while taking a look at this article is that the introduction is too small for its size. Most volcano articles of this size with FA status have a lead section that is at least three or four paragraphs long. Volcano guy 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Some of the images are missing alt texts. Volcano guy 18:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Update on progress so far? Blue Jay ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I'm starting on replacing old sources with new sources. Blue Jay ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I was extremely busy with many things, and I had to deal with some issues in my personal life. Hopefully I can get back to improving this article. Blue Jay ( talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC) reply
I've added another paragraph to the prose, and replaced a couple more sources. I hope I could find more sources soon. Blue Jay ( talk) 13:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this article (a 2007 promotion) for featured article review for multiple reasons:
Simply put, the article is a unnavigable mess. On the positive side, much of the content is cited with professional high-quality book sources, but the issues above are too significant not for this to be reviewed. I suspect what should be in this article and what should be split would be up for long debate, so I think it'll need more time and work for this to be FA quality, and I mean lots of it. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Career" section needs to be summarized (specifically the Colorado Avalanche section), the "Style of play" section does not cite sources published post-2007, and there are some statements that need citations. Edits have not been made to the article since it was noticed. Z1720 ( talk) 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply
So while this didn't look to be in bad shape at a first glance, I am very concerned about what seem to be significant issues with the lead, style of play section, and the overall weighting of the article. Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC) reply