Wikipedia:Featured article review/Deconstructivism/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 removed by Dana boomer 00:36, 7 March 2011 [1].

Deconstructivism

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Deconstructivism

Featured article review/Deconstructivism/archive1

Notified: Joopercoopers, DVD R W, WikiProject Architecture 5 December 2010

Missed adding to Featured article reviews list when page was created; added to list today. --Elekhh (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet several FA criterias:

1(b) - comprehensive: while it provides a good coverage of the movement's early history and the 1980s, it has very little coverage of the past 20 years. A growing list of relevant links in the See also section is also evidence of the article lacking coverage. (According to WP:SEEALSO "a good article might not require a "See also" section at all".)
2(c) - consistent citations: The article lacks inline citations, so that the source of many paragraphs and even sections is not clear.

Elekhh (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sadly, due to lack of inline citations and sort of weird organization (not completely chronological?). I really want to work on this now, but I simply have no time for what will end up to be a very intensive task. If removed, I will likely work on taking this back to FA in the future, when I have time to work on it. Please, if someone else wants to save this article now, before a likely delist, contact me right away as I can still be of help. I just can't take on the whole article alone. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes: We don't "vote" to delist in the FAR phase-- please see WP:FAR instructions. Also, please update the timestamp to show that this FAR was just listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got it mixed up with FARC. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment 1(b) 'it has very little coverage of the past 20 years' this rather presupposes there has been coverage in the past 20 years and that whatever coverage there may be, has sufficient weight to be included. Perhaps some evidence for this might be presented? 1(c) inline citations are present - sadly we have got to a point where we argue about 'citation density' but I have no desire to regurgitate such arguments - delist if you must. --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this nomination is not an act of obscure wiki-bureaucracy, but felt compelled to file it as I have observed misunderstandings by readers and editors who rely on the article to understand deconstructivism, and are encouraged to do so because of its FA status. Most architects which are mentioned in the article as part of the movement, including Frank Gehry, Daniel Libeskind, Peter Eisenman, Zaha Hadid, Coop Himmelb(l)au etc. have been active in the last 20 years, but the article does not make clear to what extent their recent work is still considered deconstructivism. Certainly there has been critique and reviews of their more recent work. And how about Günther Behnisch or Thom Mayne? And if there wouldn't have been any coverage in the last 20 years than that would be notable in itself. Regarding 2(c) inline citations, again, this is not about citation fanaticism, but in this article there are whole sections without any indication of the source. Are those sections based on Derrida, Frampton, Venturi? - certainly different personalities. --Elekhh (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Agree with above comments per Elekhh (talk · contribs) and Fetchcomms (talk · contribs), above those issues are not addressed, mostly due to referencing and cleanup issues. JJ98 (Talk) 09:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Problems haven't been addressed. --Elekhh (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per my above misplaced comment—due to lack of inline citations and sort of weird organization (not completely chronological?). I'd like to work on this sometime and bring it back to FA later, so I'm open to a collaboration if anyone wants to work with me. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.