Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/West Wycombe Park/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC) [1].

West Wycombe Park edit

Notified: Giano, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject Buckinghamshire, WikiProject Architecture/Historic houses task force,

I am nominating this featured article for review because it quite clearly does not meet the criteria for being classed as an FA. It received FA status all the way back in November 2006, at a time when the criteria for reaching FA status was far more lax (indeed a great many of articles that were awarded FA status in those early years have since been demoted). In particular, this article consists primarily of un-referenced information (and thus clearly fails 2c of the FA criteria), and accordingly at present it would not even pass GAN, let along FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection: Wikipedia:Featured article review requires a step before FAR: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article." Looking at the tiny, unspecific exchange at Talk:West Wycombe Park #Featured Article?, I don't believe that any effort has been made by the nominator to "resolve issues", nor to "informally improve" the article, but only to raise vague issues with citations and then jump straight to FAR. FACR 2c requires content to be "supported by inline citations where appropriate" - the link is to an essay "Wikipedia:When to cite". That in turn rests on the essay Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged, which gives advice on when to use in-line citations. Until such time as: specific concerns have been raised; we have seen just what content is challenged; and an attempt allowed to address meet those specific concerns, this FAR should be closed. --RexxS (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. While I might be criticised for jumping to FAR too hastily in this instance, I did open a conversation on the article Talk Page prior to doing so. The only response that I received was one from the original FA nominator who expressed the view that there was no problem with the referencing, which is quite clearly not the case. The chronic lack of in-line citations in this article is extremely concerning; I reiterate my viewpoint that this article (in its present state) would not even pass GAN, let alone FAC. In its present condition, it is not good enough to be rated as an FA. This being the case I would hope that other editors recognise the problem here and keep this FAR open. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it fr speedy deletion: it would appear that I invented of dreamed half the facts up - I'm sure that none of them could be found by the nominator here quite simply with a five minute google search, so it's best to delete it and let him start to write it again. Giano (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at my user page, you would see that I use female pronouns, Giano. Beware the perils of androcentrism! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would I want to look at your user page? Giano (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it might prevent you from making erroneous assumptions about me, as you just did. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with RexxS above; this is a good-faith FAR, but is based on a misunderstanding of WP:WIAFA. The only places on Wikipedia where "every statement needs a citation" holds true are the hooks at DYK, and direct or closely paraphrased quotations; a more general "cite every paragraph" isn't and never has been a FA criterion. (The actual criterion is—and has been for a decade—anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers.) If you can point out any unsourced statements that aren't simple statements of fact I agree it would be appropriate to remove or reword them, but "some parts may need minor edits" is a very long way from requiring the bureaucracy of FARC. ‑ Iridescent 15:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. No Wikipedia article – let alone an FA – should have this level of un-cited material. Let's be honest here; if I presented this article for GAN, it wouldn't even pass right now, let alone passing an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment: Midnightblueowl, I have to agree that this seems a bit hasty - while you did post to the talk page, you opened this review only 25 hours later. I would encourage you to outline your specific concerns on the talk page and give editors a bit more time to respond and discuss. If in a week or two your concerns persist we can re-open this review; for the moment, it is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Nikkimaria; putting it on hold probably seems like the best compromise right now. I will raise the specific issues over at the article's talk page, and if no improvements are forthcoming then I shall alert you in order to bring the article back to FAR. Regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that this nomination has not been preceded by sufficient article talk page discussion whereby the primary or subsequent editors may address itemized concerns. Recommend closing this and allowing points to be made at article talk first.--MONGO 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: This review was put on hold. The discussion moved to the talk page of the article and I and User:Choess did some work on the article. I believe it can now be closed and archived. DrKay (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Have all of your concerns now been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'd forgotten about this. From what I can see, there are still at least two areas of unreferenced text in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed them[2]. DrKay (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/West_Wycombe_Park/archive1&oldid=1091635615"