Wikipedia:Featured article review/Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 4:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Mav, Lbreid, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject United States, 2024-02-14
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. The history section stops at 2017, so there would need to be a search for more recent events to see if there is anything to add. "Henderson, Paul (1986)" and "United States Geological Survey" are listed in the bibliography but are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article does need a review, but I'm skeptical that problems are that severe here. A quick check of page size for now vs. the promoted version suggests that very little about the text size has changed, so I rather doubt that much is actually unreferenced. Is there reason to believe something very significant happened since 2017? The idea that things have been quiet seems entirely reasonable to me, there's no need to include every stray mention in a news article. The two general references are trivial complaints - general references as a style are discouraged but this was promoted in 2005. I'm not necessarily saying this is an easy keep, but the reasoning is different - the problem isn't really an occasional stray line of uncited text, the problem is that standards have risen since 2005-2008 and this might not be a comprehensive enough citing of the best sources. SnowFire (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SnowFire: Are you interested in taking on making it more comprehensive? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely I have the time to do this, I'm afraid. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Concerns remain, much is still uncited and no recent edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Thin lead. Single sentence paragraphs. Many unsourced statements, including whole paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. I was hoping I might be able to get around to fixing this up, but it's clear to me that I'm not going to have the time in the near future. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 21 October 2024 (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) 14:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.