Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2017
Kept edit
Delisted edit
- 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) 6:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC) [1].
Tahirih Justice Center edit
- Notified: DrFleischman, Finnusertop, UberCryxic, Jeff3000, PumpkinSky, Kirill Lokshin, WikiProject Human rights, Orangemike, Drmies, Kingsindian
Review section edit
I am nominating this featured article for review because it substantially fails to meet criteria 1d, and contains frequent editorialisation about Tahirih Justice Center's pioneering work
and how their organisation aids clients holistically
. These issues were raised at NPOVN and at the article talk page in September 2014. Advertising and even notability maintenance banners were placed on the article, and remain in place to this day. I have not dug into it very far, but there appear to have been concerns in the talk page archive as far back as 2006. This article does not represent an example of Wikipedia's best work, and should be delisted. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC) rationale expanded at 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Delist - It has been a long time since the concerns were rightly put up at this page and the link provided by User:TheDragonFire. There are also maintenance tags lingering around from a long time. Major issues still unfixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist--thanks for getting this going. I agree with myself from way back in 2014 or whatever. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: undressed serious concerns that cast doubt on FA criteria being met at this point. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (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) 16:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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) 6:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC) [2].
Abbas Kiarostami edit
Review section edit
I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1a, b, c; 2c. This article was promoted back in 2007; Kiarostami has made three feature films since then, which are only briefly discussed in the article. I have also noted problems with close paraphrasing on the article's talk page. Additionally, there are many citation needed-tags in the prose. Gertanis (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per nom, needs a lot of work. It was a great article in 2007, one of the best on film people at the time but not close to current standards. Aside from obvious sourcing issues it is out of date and there's hundreds more books available now. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My plate is full at the moment, but if someone else searches proper critical commentary for expansion/revision of the article, there's plenty of useful stuff in issue 81 of Senses of Cinema. Gertanis (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include referencing, coverage, and close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - See comment above; no effort has been made to improve the article. --Gertanis (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. In addition to the obvious citation tags (enough by themselves for delisting), I found MoS issues, image tagging problems, and even more plagiarism concerns than the ones mentioned on the Talk page. Some of those problems could be remedied by copy editing, but others need the attention of editors familiar with the sources. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Tagged for citation needed since June 2016. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2017 (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) 16:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.