Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manuel Noriega/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 28 September 2020 [1].

Manuel Noriega

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Manuel Noriega, a colorful and controversial figure in Central American history. He was a military strongman in Panama, and a large player in hemispheric politics of the 1980s. The article has passed an A-Class review from the military history project, and a detail GA review before that. I've gone deep into the source material, and believe it to be as comprehensive as a reasonable length will allow. I welcome all comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Per previous review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

I already did a source review of this article at ACR, so it would probably benefit from fresh eyes in that regard. So I will quote what SandyGeorgia is always saying at WP:FAR wrt Further reading sections: A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. Does the further reading (7 items at present) contain encyclopedic information relevant to the subject that doesn't duplicate the article's current content? If not, it should probably be trimmed. I am not saying the article should be expanded, I think the length is good, but some of the further reading seems more relevant to other articles such as United States v. Noriega, just stubbed by me, which turns out to have significant legal implications unrelated to Noriega's biography. (t · c) buidhe 09:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I have rarely invested much time in further reading sections, so I'm not wedded to any of this, but I've always seen them as akin to see also sections; places where the reader can find information too tangential or too detailed for the article itself. I'd argue that holds true here. Ideally, perhaps, all that information would be present in spinoff articles or related articles, but given that it isn't (yet), the entries seem useful to me. If that's unpersuasive, I will remove them. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has passed into the Older Nominations section without much substantive review or support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Vanamonde93 if you will open a peer review I have been working on quite considerable commentary, suggesting that the GA nom should be re-visited. Please ping me if a Peer review is opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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