Wikipedia:Featured article review/Backmasking/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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC) [1].
Backmasking edit
- Notified: Audacity, SandyGeorgia, Tony1, Chensiyuan (original participants in the FAC that are still active), WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject The Beatles
Review section edit
I've pretty much said everything I need to at Talk:Backmasking#FA_problems already; suffice to say I don't think this article is anywhere close to the current FA standards and I don't have sufficient source material to make a crack at it myself. There has been little response at the article or the talk page, other than a minor agreement we should come here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
Moved to here. No real activity in the 3 weeks it has been listed at FARC and month before that on article talk. lack of inline sourcing is major concern noted, plus reliableness of some sources used. Will delist if no activity in the next two weeks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not used to the FARC process, but I'd say Delist. The lead is way too small (three really small lines for a decent sized article), occasional lack of citations, and at some points it just seems like the article is listing off backmasking instances in albums, without any real commentary on its use. While it's certainly an interesting article for FA, it just isn't up to standard. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per concerns raised. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist (can I do that as nominator?) I wouldn't know where to start in improving this article, other than nuking and paving, and it's best to do that out of the spotlight of an FA reassessment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333: it is important to give your updated opinion so updated comments are encouraged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2016 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.