Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scottish Parliament/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) 2:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [1].

Scottish Parliament

Notified: Globaltraveller, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Edinburgh, 31 December

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised several issues on the talk page more than 2 weeks ago, which have yet to be addressed. There are 12 citation needed tags; also, the article heavily cites official sources while neglecting scholarship, as I noted on talk. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A dead give away that there is a major lack of non-official commentary is the statement "Various academics have written on how the Scottish Parliament can be improved as a governing institution" in the criticism section. We are told this, but not what those scholars think should be done. This article seems overfocused on the offical aspects of it, without any secondary commentary. If we are told the official perspective, but not what unaffiliated scholars and RS think about the setup, that is a neutrality issue, as we're only getting one side of the story. Hog Farm _Talk 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe there was some work on this article on 17 January-- update needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SandyGeorgia Yes, there was a reduction in cn tags [2] by adding citations and removing unsourced content, but on the other hand we are not any further along in including non-official perspectives, as noted by Hog Farm above. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, per Buidhe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Citation needed tags. DrKay (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my original nom. (t · c) buidhe 17:52, 9 February 2021 (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) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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