Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry Moore/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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Solipsist, (FAC nominator) Caeciliusinhorto, (significant contributor), Ceoil, (significant contributor, FAR commentator), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject England, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Yorkshire, WikiProject London, 2023-04-16
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about the quality of the sources. Many references are to museum websites and news articles, while numerous books from high-quality publishers are listed in Further reading, unused as references in the article. Furthermore, a search on various databases produced several academic journals which could also replace the lower-quality sources currently used as references. No one responded to my talk page notice, so here we are. I am hoping that this can be ready for a TFA run on Moore's 150th birthday (July 30). Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there are issues with comprehensiveness and sourcing: in particular I would expect reference to Christa Lichtenstern's Henry Moore: Work, Theory, Impact (available on archive.org), and discussion of Moore's drawings outside of the Shelter drawings (possibly with reference to the 2019 Henry Moore Drawings: The Art of Seeing exhibition catalogue). There are also half a dozen {{citation needed}} tags that need resolving, and the citations are not consistently formatted.
- I'd be happy to help work on this if others are keen, but I haven't done much serious wikipedia content work so far this year and I don't really have the enthusiasm to make a big project of this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel similar to Caeciliusinhorto; I like Moore somewhat, but it wouldn't be enough to go full blown on saving. BTY, also agree that this FAR is needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC with the hopes that work does begin on this one later, but work has not begun and there's a general consensus of comprehensiveness/sourcing issues here. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, per Hog Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - some MOS editing happening, but the larger, more serious issues have not been touched. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the sourcing and comprehensive concerns have not been addressed yet, and I think it will take a lot to bring this back to FA status. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, alas. Needs serious, fundamental (coverage, sources) work. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2023 (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) 03:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.