Wikipedia:Featured article review/Not My Life/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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2020-06-27
Review section
[edit]This 2014 promotion is based on a very strange FAC consisting mostly of an almost drive-by support, and an extended conversation with the author of one of the sources. The nominator is banned for considerable sockpuppetry, and one of the other two FAC reviewers has vanished (so no one to notify here). There have been no significant changes since the notice three years ago from Buidhe raised concerns about sourcing. This is one of the oldest entries at WP:FARGIVEN, so I'm bringing it forward for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider accelerated delist process. Neelix is, in retrospect, not particularly trustworthy for prose-source integrity. 1ST7's review seems to have been cursory and Cliftonian is another somewhat controversial former Wikipedian whose FAs have often not withstood deeper scrutiny, so really this only stands on Tim.riley's review. While the Stone Canoe source is wonderful in its own way, Stone Canoe does not appear to be a particularly prestigious source, so its extensive use is a bit questionable, especially given the obviously positive slant Neelix applied using it. Does not appear that close to making FA standards, unfortunately, and may be a topic that is inherently difficult to write a FA on in the first place due to obscurity + patchy sources. SnowFire (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- accelerate process candidate largely per SnowFire. Is heavily reliant on a source that while is decent is not something to base the entire structure of a FA around, and due to all of the issues with nominator and reviewers Fruit of the poisonous tree may apply here for FA status. Hog Farm Talk 21:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Nobody working on it, few recent edits. Per above, a tough article to write a FA on in general due to the difficulty of balancing between comprehensiveness and the high expectations of FA sourcing, as emphasizing one tends to weaken the other for obscure topics like this. SnowFire (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above; issues are structural to the extent that this probably needs a fresh FAC even if fixed. Hog Farm Talk 01:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above and my original notice. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No one actively working on this. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 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) 06:09, 16 December 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.