The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article was promoted in 2008 and current FA requirements are more demanding particularly with regard to citations, which are lacking for sections of this article. Graham Beards ( talk) 15:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Graham Beards: - As nominator, do you have anything further to add here? Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC) [4].
I am nominating this featured article for review because as Hog Farm noted on the talk page a month ago, there is lots of unsourced content and so far no one tried to fix it. ( t · c) buidhe 17:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [5].
This is another promotion from the late 2000s that would be quickfailed if reviewed by today standards. Its nominator and the one that promoted it to FA status has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2015, which means I didn't notify them. The problems with this article boil down to the fact that it's not well put together. Uncited statements (even paragraph-long uncited material) abound, there is essential info in its lead (and even quoteboxes) that should be in the body but isn't, and its prose suffers from tech jargon either not elaborated or linked to another article; what is a workstation? "general-purpose DSP chip"? "programming environment standard"? "application layer"? "vector drawing program"? Additionally, it has scant retrospective analysis, which including it would really help its seemingly lackluster Legacy section. Other indicators this needs a copyedit. A subsection "1996–97: purchase by Apple" talks about many things that occurred after that, as late as 2001, meaning its subsection name is blatantly wrong 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [6].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted by RetiredDuke a while back on the talk page, the article has issues with needing citations, bloat (11,500 words readable prose), image sandwiching, and lack of updating. The stuff that is sourced looks mostly OK, so I think the article is fixable but it will take a considerable amount of work. ( t · c) buidhe 02:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I added a heading that says the article needs some updating, so that people would know. Blue Jay ( talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Any updates on progress so far? Blue Jay ( talk) 03:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - Just FYI there will be new demographic information on Seattle released on May 27th from the US 2020 Census, which should be incorporated. Mattximus ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [7].
This is a 2007 FA that has not been maintained to FA standards, and that has not been improved since the talk page notice six months ago. Issues include poor image layout, out of control galleries, listiness and single-sentence paragraphs, citation overkill, incomplete citations, dated information, uncited text, inadequate use of summary style (especially noticeable in the alumni section), and the lead reads as promotional rather than a summary of the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments from HAL333
Those are the most glaring big picture issues I see. ~ HAL 333 21:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [8].
One of the oldest ones remaining on the list at WP:URFA/2020, this 2006 promotion is not at current FA sourcing standards. Large chunks of the article (including entire paragraphs and the entire overthrowing the democracy section) are sourced only to ancient sources. While primary sources are okay in light doses in FAs, use of ancient sources need to be careful, and they are overused here. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [9].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has numerous issues I outlined on the talk page, including a lede that needs expansion, missing citations marked with citation needed templates, and concerns that the latest "Historical storms" listed is Hurricane Sandy in 2012, making me believe that this needs an update. Z1720 ( talk) 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Update on progress? Blue Jay ( talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [10].
This FA, which hasn't been reviewed since 2007, has a litany of issues - uncited text, questionable web sources, and an accumulation of crufty tables. DrKay raised concerns on the talk page way back in 2019, but they remain largely unaddressed. Did not notify top editor, as they are an IP who has not edited this article since 2015, so I think the chances of a notification reaching the right person are slim. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [11].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains a few uncited paragraphs, and the long-term trends section is outdated and poorly structured. Additional minor comments on talk. Some issues have been tackled since the talk page notice, but further progress is needed.
This should be a saver, considering how many TC enthusiasts we have. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Going on two months, and this article is a long way from there; not sure why we are not just moving forward to FARC here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [12].
This is a 2007 FAR whose main editor is deceased. When noticed for a FAR at the end of February, the article had uncited text and original research. [13] I asked other editors if they had the sources to begin repair, but found no one able to take on the task. Subsequently, other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected. [14] A new editor fixed some of them, but the article still has uncited text, original research, and now missing page numbers. Salvaging this requires access to a number of sources to sort out original research from citable text, and get the page numbers correct. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia, do you mind if we move the comments to talk? Victoria ( tk) 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Delist Editors working to address concerns recommended FARC, which doesn't give me confidence that this article is FA-status. Victoria mentioned above that there are numerous post-2010 sources that need to be consulted, and I don't know if FAR is the best place to complete this process. No significant edits since it moved to FARC. Z1720 ( talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [17].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, there are too many images that need to be trimmed and the references contain unformatted links (ref 16) and original research (ref 5). Note: there was an FAR conducted in 2006 under a previous name, which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of St. Patrick/archive1. Z1720 ( talk) 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment I have access to the JSTOR article linked above. However, there were concerns posted on the article's talk page that we need Galloway's book to bring this back to FA standards. I can't access the book through my local library system because of COVID restrictions. Does anyone have access to this book? Z1720 ( talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment there is HUGE work to be done here, that access to a single book/journal will not resolve.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 1:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [18].
I am nominating this featured article, promoted in 2006, for review because it has some issues with verifiability (more than 20 cn tags) as well as lacking info on global warming impacts, as pointed out by Z1720 and Femke Nijsse on the talk page 2 weeks ago. ( t · c) buidhe 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC) reply
I've added a small paragraph on climate change, and slightly expanded the lede. Still hoping for Sabine's Seabird to come back. FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Crap I have some stuff to add too. (knew I'd forgotten something...) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Update: Pomatostomus, a new user, has addressed almost half of the citation needed tags by adding high-quality sources. Pinging them here, in case they weren't aware they're helping save the star. FemkeMilene ( talk) 10:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [31].
This 2005 promotion was last reviewed in 2008. It has uncited text, poor sources, dead links and incomplete citations. It has good bones, and a tune-up might see it through FAR if someone takes an interest. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment - I tried to find a source about the Everett Copy of the Gettysburg Address, which says Lincoln sent to Everett to his request, but alas, I couldn't find one. Many of the websites either copied the text from Wikipedia or aren't reliable. Blue Jay ( talk) 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [32].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and sentences, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the format of references is inconsistent and short paragraphs needs to be merged with other sections. Z1720 ( talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Did anyone want to take a crack at the uncited section on the RAF? I don't have much interest in aerial warfare but it seems pretty non-contentious, and hopefully easy to cite - Dumelow ( talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply
This article is quite a mess. Who is still working on it? Citations need a lot of work. Also, MOS:DTAB. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Noting that War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR closed a few days ago. I hope someone steps forward with sources to help rebuild this article, as there has already been some great edits to fix this article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I've got some concerns with a few of the web sources used.
I took a look at the WWII sourcing I could access, but none of it is relevant to this topic (mostly USA stuff). With Dumelow thinking this may have hit a dead end, I think I probably agree on that. Momentum seems to have stalled out, and there is quite a bit yet to do. So move to FARC, I guess, unless somebody else steps up. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [34].
I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated on talk, the article has multiple issues:
The response to these concerns was to state that there's nothing wrong with the article. [35] Article was last reviewed in 2006; at the time, it was only 7992 words long, so the greater part of the article has never been reviewed at all. ( t · c) buidhe 04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comments by Nick-D I've long considered this article problematic, and agree that a FAR is in order. I'd like to offer the following comments:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment
I agree with the nominator and other commenters here that this article has major issues and is not up to current FA standards. It is actually really hard to read and its coverage of the topic is very uneven. As an example, I don't understand why, in the Korean War section, there is so much focus on the 65th Regiment, when the preamble to the section mentions 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the war. Presumably they didn't all serve in the 65th regiment. The heading for the section containing the awards the regiment earned during the war is misplaced. The amount of awards earned in WWII seem trivial and hardly worth mentioning given the scope of the article. I am not hopeful that the remedial work will be completed as the primary editor best placed to do this seems to think nothing is wrong with the article. As an aside, I am also concerned that the primary editor is mentioned in the article in the Vietnam War section and a picture of himself illustrates the section. That seems to be a COI if the primary editor added them. Zawed ( talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment by TJMSmith: I am a bit confused on the scope of the article. I think it obfuscates the military history of Puerto Rico (the island) and the history of Puerto Rican military people. For example, this article mentions Maritza Sáenz Ryan, Marc H. Sasseville and Hilda Clayton who were all born in the states and did not serve their career in PR. Are they relevant to this article? Additionally, Hector E. Pagan, Irene M. Zoppi, Noel Zamot, María Inés Ortiz have served the majority of their careers off the island on missions not tied to PR. Heather Penney is mentioned but is not Puerto Rican. TJMSmith ( talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, I have done what I can to add some more citations to areas that were missing them, but I am probably at the limit of what I can do. There are a few issues in the Korean War section that I think need clarification as a couple of points don't quite seem to make sense (I have marked these with clarification tags) -- can anyone assist with rectifying these? I have also tried to reduce image sandwiching and in the process have reorganised the article a little, including merging a couple of sections: [37]. Potentially this merge wasn't the best idea on my part -- I would appreciate others taking a look and if need be, I am happy for it to be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment by Intothatdarkness: I took a whack at some of the stuff in Vietnam and WW2. Having done cleanup in some of the other linked articles I've found misquoting or misparaphrasing sources to be issues worth checking, and corrected some examples in the sections I worked on. Not much, but it's a start. Intothat darkness 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [42].
While you were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being trained.... to review featured articles!
— Terl from Battlefield Earth
Another FA promotion from more than 10 years ago, a time of lower standards for the FA criteria. The article, mainly, is way too incomplete to meet the criteria; its production section has little-to-none about the actual production, just the Scientology relations in its development, when the making of its special effects, design, filming, scoring and so on has garnered features in science fiction magazines, special features in home media releases, and several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here (the DVD commentary is only cited one). Additionally, the film has not kept up with retrospective opinion and analysis, the reception section is a quotefarm with little attempt at opinion consolidation, and citations are incomplete in at least one field or another, with its two prominent book sources cited with too broad page ranges and no specific page numbers. Also, we have a random Youtuber's account as a source for Ref 66. The article needs significant improvement to deserve its golden star. 👨x🐱 ( talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply
several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here-- any chance of links? I might be interested in taking a crack at this, but no guarantees, and some jumping-off points would be good. I've read more than a bit on this film in my day. Vaticidal prophet 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
👨x🐱 ( talk) 15:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Battlefield Earth is currently unavailable to stream anywhere in the UK. Aside from that amusingly reversed boilerplate, the Independent retrospective looks just a rehash of the Vice one. The Vice one is excellent, but I've seen Vice be criticised at the FA level -- thoughts? Vaticidal prophet 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 7:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [43].
This 2006 promotion really goes to show how much FAC standards have changed. In November 2006, the FAC had a whopping 16 supports. Now, it's not even that close to the criteria. There's large swaths of uncited text, some of what appear to be the references are really just uncited notes, and unclear citations such as "Primary Chronicle _____." Additionally, since the FA promotion, the layout of the article has declined. There are now multiple collapsed navboxes hidden in section, and at least on my system, MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 7:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [44].
There has also been a POV tag on the article for a year, which is a bad look when paired with a star. ( t · c) buidhe 16:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC) replyThis article does not currently meet the current featured article criteria. There is an outstanding maintenance tag, bits of uncited text, and heavy use of advocacy sources instead of scholarly sources. I have concerns about the sheer amount of sourcing here to advocacy groups, political action groups, and sources that clearly take sides on this debate, such as "Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics" and sources with titles like " "The U.S. Corporate Income Tax System: Once a World Leader, Now A Millstone Around the Neck of American Business". I have serious concerns about the quality of this article.