Wikipedia:Featured article review/Epaminondas/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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Epaminondas

Notified: Yannismarou, Robth, MinisterForBadTimes, Ragesoss, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Politics, WP LGBT, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, talk page notification 2021-11-13

Review section

As noted by T8612 on the article's talk page, this older FA is too heavily reliant on ancient sources and a couple weaker modern sources while neglecting/barely using several key modern works. Hog Farm _Talk 22:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist except for a couple edits by Avilich, I'm not seeing an effort to address the issues discussed above, particularly sourcing (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold, Amitchell125 is at work here. Hog Farm _Talk 15:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the scale of the work required to check/remove/improve the citations is proving to be beyond me. Just working on the Historical sources section in my sandbox revealed some of the issues involved, the section clearly needs to be rewritten and re-cited. Within the rest of the article, whole swathes of the text that are not directly related to the subject are duplicated within other articles.

The article could do with a {{more citations needed}} tag, and a thorough copy edit. I can easily remove most of the citations from the old sources (where quotes are not being cited), and address a few other outstanding issues, but I will stop there. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Amitchell125. Hog Farm _Talk 14:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"At work" is a funny way to put it. It's certainly not going anywhere if Amitchell keeps inexplicably removing the only two sources in existence that deal with early life in detail. Not that it matters anyway, there's no way this can remain a FA. Avilich (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per Amitchell125. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 January 2022 (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. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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