Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narwhal/archive5

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2024 [1].

Narwhal

Nominator(s): Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the narwhal. As can be seen by this diff, I've done some extensive work since the article's last appearance. Nothing much to say, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning on doing a spot check, please let me know, so I can assist you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what happened to "this article won't be nominated again for ten years"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Listen man, don't take what I say seriously. I'm a just a kid <25, so I might say some irrational stuff from time to time. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I left extensive comments at the last FAC, mostly around sourcing. I have read the provided diff in full and cannot see that they have been addressed: in truth, most of the edits in it appear to consist of nothing more than moving text around. On trying to verify one of the earliest citations (notes 6 to 8), I see one vanity-press publication that does not pass WP:HQRS, one primary source that can't verify most of the cited material (and which is mislabelled), and one good source that doesn't verify the material. Frankly, if the nominator is unwilling to do the work of ensuring the article's basic academic integrity, I am at a loss as to why FAC reviewers should be expected to do so at the fifth time of asking. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Citation 8 verifies the statement, citation 6 is to verify the name "Monocerote" and citation 7 to show its connection to unicorns. Can we discuss as to why citation 8 is not reliable? Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Pinging again, since you have such a problem with that sentence, I removed it. Please reconsider your vote, and examine more sources if you will. Just because it seems like I only moved text, doesn't mean that's the case. I don't know why you're not giving this article any chance at all. Please do a full review, then vote. Your point about "most of the edits in it appear to consist of nothing more than moving text around" is false. I'm trying my best here, so I would appreciate more kindness and consideration from you. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much not trying your best. Your solution to continual complaints about source-text integrity was to wait for someone else to do the work and to complain when no-one bothered. Now here you are demanding more consideration from the reviewers of a process you have shown none to. UC has typed over 85,000 bytes of commentary on your five FACs for this article—and you have the guts to accuse them of not giving this article a chance? As someone who is also younger than 25—grow up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to this particular nominee, not the other four. In case you weren't able to tell, I did a thorough source to text check. Furthermore, if you are not going to comment on the article rather than the user, I see no need for having you here. To be honest, you are simply loitering and taking up unnecessary space. I just want UC to come back and double-check on this, since their issue above (unreliable citation) has been eliminated. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine XI, I came here as a possible reviewer, but having read the above I'm not going to review the article and I doubt anyone else will want to either. Reviewer time is a scarce resource and failing to respond to detailed comments is one of the worst things you can do in the eyes of other reviewers. Why would I put in a couple of hours to try to help you if it appears you're unwilling to engage with reviews? I suggest you withdraw this, or the coords archive it, and if you're truly interested in article improvement stick to GA for a while. And if you do that, take GA reviewing seriously too -- both as a reviewer and a nominator. Don't undervalue the work others do in trying to collaborate with you from either side of the process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike Christie, but what do you mean I don't engage in reviews? I tried communicating with UC but it seems like they don't want to. If I did something wrong I'm sorry, I'm just bamboozled by their oppose vote which doesn't quite make sense to me, considering I have removed the sentence they have a problem with. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC's comments above are pretty clear. UC is one of the best reviewers on Wikipedia: if they say you haven't addressed their comments, I believe them. If you think you have addressed them, go back and take another look and try to understand what they can have meant that you're not getting. If you can't figure out why they are saying that I don't think you're ready for FAC; that's why I suggested you should work at GAN for a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

It is clear that the nomination is unprepared for FAC. Still, or perhaps again. So I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. More in hope than expectation I urge the nominator to read and take on board the vast amount of advice offered on this article over the past nine months. They could do worse that start with [2]. Followed by the very much to the point comments of the three editors above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need a chat with this user. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:19, 9 August 2024 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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