Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tulsa, Oklahoma/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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) 2:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

Tulsa, Oklahoma edit

Notified: Okiefromokla, WikiProject Oklahoma, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Geography

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has many of the same issues as Oklahoma, by the same author. Two weeks ago I wrote on the TP, "This 2007 promotion needs to be revisited. It has significant issues with citation format, excessive use of primary sources, and non-cited content." (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review from RD

The FA nominator and main contributor has not edited since June 2009, which is problematic if no one has been keeping an eye on the article. And that seems to be exactly the case with the ammount of problems spotted and the sheer number of bad additions that have crept in:

  • Unreliable sources
  • NativeLand.ca openly says it's not reliable when you visit it: "This map does not represent or intend to represent official or legal boundaries of any Indigenous nations." and "it is a work in progress with tons of contributions from the community". - Not ideal to source info on Indian tribes;
  • Citydictionary.com is used in the article, a blog which main page says "What Defines Your City - Share your knowledge by creating definitions for local slang, events, restaurants and more!"
  • What makes "TulsaWeb" a reliable source?
  • What makes "city-data.com" a reliable source?
  • What makes "mostlivable.org" a reliable source?
  • What is even RelocateAmerica? The site is blatant promo;
  • Blatant promo for International Art Deco Congress;
  • Promo link to Red Carpet Charters;
  • Promo link to Trailways.com;
  • We have the the Tulsa Port of Catoosa sourcing "The facility is one of the largest riverports in the United States";
  • Three links to TravelOK, which constitute advertisement;
  • Random promo link to Holberton School Tulsa - "Learn to code in Tulsa", they say - we even have the fee mentioned in the link!;
  • Promo about higher learning private schools - I don't see how half of that info is relevant to the city of Tulsa, since those institutions have their own articles to go on about campuses and enrollment and courses;
  • The "prose" in the "In popular culture" subsection is substandard;
  • Unsourced text everywhere;
  • Stubby sentences everywhere;
  • The article puts exactly the same emphasis on professional soccer and high school sports, which seems extraordinary to me;
  • The Culture section is full of fluff; half of the festivals mentioned do not seem that relevant and lack the sources to support their relevance.

This needs work to retain FA status. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are 2 extra-small, one-sentence long subsections, "Walkability" and "Bicycling". 1) Why? 2) There's a "Running, biking and trails" subsection down below, that's where the info belong. Curiously, the section is named "Running, biking and trails" but there's no mention of trails there;
  • There's a subsection on the "August 6, 2017 tornado". I don't see the need for a whole subsection on it in an article about the city. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since apparently nobody's working on. Citations needed everywhere, unreliable sources abound. Image placements issues: they don't always match up to the accompanying text. There's a bare URL in the sources. Having a section just on the wild onion dinner seems like possibly undue weight, there's several similar things. Not an FA as it stands, or even a GA. Hog Farm Bacon 16:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist geography articles are among the hardest to keep current ... this one is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as per neutrality and sourcing concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 11 November 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Tulsa,_Oklahoma/archive1&oldid=989958960"