Wikipedia:Featured article review/Olympic Games/archive2
- 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [1].
Olympic Games edit
- Notified: H1nkles, Rodney Baggins, Br'er Rabbit, Parutakupiu, Trenchfox, Max Arosev, Aridd, ErnestKrause, WP Olympics, WP Sports, WP Multi-sport events, noticed in May 2021
Review section edit
This older FA on a major topic is deficient in a number of areas - the nations section is largely unsourced, undue detail seems to have accreted in several areas (see, for instance, the self-sourced criticism material from Lutdal, when there's no indication why this one piece of criticism is significant enough to mention), dated statistics such as " Research has shown that trade is around 30 percent higher for countries that have hosted the Olympics." cited to a working paper from 2010, and concerns have been raised on the article's talk page about the "Economic and social impact on host cities and countries" section. A major overhaul is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing that the article size is approaching 200Kb which seems a bit large. One of the sections is also presently tagged for multiple issues. When doing a read-through of the article for narrative flow, then there are many instances of one and two sentence paragraphs throughout the article; it sort of gives some of the sections the appearance of being like 'lists' of sentences rather than well-written sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The inflated article size (although prose size isn't too bad) has a lot to do with the sourcing to official reports and news articles rather than a (likely smaller) set of scholarly/retrospective sources. Agree that FAR is needed. (t · c) buidhe 09:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC numerous listed sources are not used in the article, many sources are dubious, and some WP:SPINOUT and trimming needs to happen to reduce the size of the article. Considering the large amount of scholarly material on this topic, I think this article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - Buidhe culled some undue material earlier, but there is still significant sourcing and content issues here, including more weighting (is three paragraphs on the recent Russian doping really due weight for the whole history of the Olympics?) Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage, currency, and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist major improvements would be needed to meet the FA criteria, no sign of them. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Numerous problems remain, while edits have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist issues unaddressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - sizable issues. Hog Farm Talk 21:20, 29 December 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 30 December 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.