Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Puerto Rico/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 User:Dana boomer 12:50, 6 November 2013 [1].
Review commentary
edit- Notified: User talk:Joelr31, User talk:Marine 69-71, User talk:Rjensen, User talk:Mercy11, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean
This article was promoted to FA back in 2006. Looking through this article reveals a major lack of citations throughout essentially the entire article. I have tried to discuss this issue with other editors on the talk page in recent months, but nobody seems willing to commit to the major task of adding the large amount of necessary citations. This article needs major work to qualify for today’s FA standards. Note: This is the first FAR I have nominated so please bear with me as I am new to this process. Thanks. --Philpill691 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, I don't think I will find time to work on this. Also, I feel that trivia has been added to the article which does not enhance the content. Joelito (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have started looking at this article and working on sourcing the material in it. So far I've found a few issues with regards to data not supported by the sources that I have consulted (mostly books written by scholars on the subject) so I need to do some research to see if I can find any supporting materials. I have also found content that is somewhat speculative as well as inaccurate. This content will also need rewriting as well as sourcing. I'm afraid the work needed is extensive and it's going to take some time to get through it, especially since I am fairly new to editing here. I hope that those of you who have collaborated in this article or are members of the WikiProject Puerto Rico will at least be willing to review what I'm doing or help clarify things I may have questions about even if you cannot dedicate a lot of time to the cause. Nancystodd (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. There's an awful lot of material here that's just not referenced. The article also feels incomplete, with the political history stopping essentially in the 1960s and economic history fragmentary after 1945 (and especially so after the 1970s). There are also prose concerns, especially in the modern economic history section (with tense problems up to and including issues with "recently"). I suspect a dedicated editor with broad access to appropriate sources could clean this up much more easily than, for example, History of Tamil Nadu. But this has been at FAR since July with little input, and at FARC since August 23 with no previous comment at all, so I don't think that editor is forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 24 October 2013 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.