Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Movement (Australia)/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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [1].

Liberal Movement (Australia)

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2022-01-21

Review section

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and its FAC nominator has not edited since 2010. The main item of concern noted on talk is sourcing (over-reliance on one source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the editor who place the pre-FAR notice, I've been trying to follow along with this FAR. See this reply on the article talk page from Adpete. I'm beginning to believe that some of the sourcing I thought I saw out there was for different, but similarly-named groups. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ignace Tonené/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herman the Archdeacon/archive1 both passed fairly recently with heavy reliance on a single source as well. I'm having trouble finding the right search terms to filter attempts to find sources down to just looking for this one, because "liberal movement" + "australia" or "liberal movement" + "steele hall" are largely bringing up irrelevant things. If Jaensch is indeed the only real scholarly source to have discussed this in detail (meaning not Dunstan's memoirs or Hall's or Bullock's writings), then IMO if we used all that's available that's not a major issue. But I'm struggling to verify other literature's existence/nonexistence. I queried an Aussie MILHIST writer I respect to see if they knew of any editors who would be familiar with this topic, but they're on wikibreak and I haven't heard back yet. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My answer there was about the reliability of the source in general, not about whether it impacts on FA status. Sorry, I should have read the question more carefully. I know almost nothing FA rules so I can't really comment on its suitability, beyond saying that I consider Dean Jaensch a reliable source. Adpete (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I'd definitely consider Jaensch to be reliable. The bigger question is if pretty much only using Jaensch is a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" from WP:FACR. Hog Farm _Talk 13:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC; in it's time at FAR, the lead has been tweaked a bit, a maintenance tag has been added, and the very extreme reliance on one source has increased via the removal of other sources.[2]. When I add "Steele Hall" to the search, journal articles and other paywalled sources that aren't used turn up. This is overeliance on one source to an extreme (I already intimated at WT:FAC that I didn't think Ignace Tonené worthy of the star). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per Sandy and my original notice. Hog Farm _Talk 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to sourcing problems. Hog Farm _Talk 13:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist overreliance on one source. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 13 April 2023 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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