Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anton Chekhov/archive1
- 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) 6:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC) [1].
Anton Chekhov edit
Review section edit
I was very reluctant to put this article in FAR, since it is very well sourced and written. I originally left some comments on the talk page yesterday and was planning to wait a week before nominating the article for review. However, after going through the archives and past comments on the talk page I see that the concerns I expressed have been brought up for at least 13 years, but still not addressed and that the main contributor, has not edited in WP since 2012. (Although I will notify them of this FAR nonetheless) Please see this comment from 2007 and this comment from 2011.
I will relay my comments from the talk page here that basically this article suffers from minor issues and major ones. Minor ones include inconsistent sourcing and overuse of images – after posting this FAR I'll fix the sourcing. The major ones however are more concerning, in that this article almost solely focuses on biographical information and a legacy section that I would argue is still lacking – especially in terms of Chekhov's direct influence on modernism in theater and literature in Russia. There is quite literally no section on his works, style or thematic material, making this article look empty in comparison to others, like William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway or Franz Kafka. Basically the article fails 1b and 2c. I am more than willing to work on the article, but would be very hesitant to do it alone, since I am not really familiar with Chekhov past his reputation. - Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you made the right call; it definitely needs work. Looking through the images, while many of them are likely free due to their age, the tagging of the files doesn't meet the current expectations for FA. I'll work on those over the next several days to at least resolve that from your "minor issues". The major ones need someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can offer. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further issues upon looking further, these issues have come up as well:
- There are 10 block quotes for some reason; definitely too many
- There a substantial amount of WP:LEADCITE, and the lead in general seems far too short, especially when compared with the articles of the playwrights and writers above I had compared this article to
- A lot of the references don't seem to be references, but rather notes (16, 66, 67) - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: If this article doesn't end up receiving the inclusion of a themes/works/style section then I still think it would meet GA standards, just not FA. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)I take this back, a solid B class article at best, at least by current standards. Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: I agree with Aza24 that these are issued to be solved (except leadcite, which I don't mind that much). The article hasn't seen any significant work since July. The German wiki is significantly more diverse in topics (a very detailed description of his works), so I think it is clear it doesn't meet the comprehensive criterion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain; as a result of serving as FAC delegate for more than four years, there are some articles and editors where I am too conflicted to enter a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 20 October 2020 (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) 16:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.