Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yes Minister/archive1
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 User:Nikkimaria 12:44, 28 December 2014 [1].
- Notified: The JPS, Ixia, Chris 42, Bob Castle, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
Review section
[edit]This article has sourcing issues; one of sections is tagged as "original research". I tried talk page and notified people before FAR, but issues are yet to be resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - not a huge amount of work required but definitely needs some to maintain Featured status:
- the Situation section really needs some sources. It is unusual in that it combines synopsis with interpretation in the one section.
- There is nothing about casting or series development.
- The see also section should be incorporated into text.
anyway, good luck to whoever decides to work on it. Will take another look once done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- The concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and sentences, which do not appear to be self-evident. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. It's had an original research tag for 2 years! Some unsourced parts look like opinion. e.g., "This is particularly evident in the episode "The Ministerial Broadcast", in which Hacker is advised on the effects of his clothes and surroundings"; "Despite this, the overall thrust was towards government reduction rather than expansion." EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. No one working on the issues identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist an excellent series but inadequately referenced, far below modern FA standards. BencherliteTalk 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per the others. Poorly sourced and written.—indopug (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2014 (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) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.