Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cape Horn/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 removed by Dana boomer 15:36, 27 February 2011 [1].

Cape Horn

Review commentary

Featured article candidates/Cape Horn

Featured article review/Cape Horn/archive1

Notified: Johantheghost, WikiProject Chile, WikiProject Islands

This article is way short of the FA criteria. Passed in 2006, the article has not deteriorated significantly since then, so a simple "massive revert" will not solve any of the issues, which include:

Large parts of the article are unreferenced.
Many places the prose is weak and has non-compliance with the MOS. Examples include single-sentence paragraphs, incorrect use of italics and boldface, unexplained acronyms, inline use of coordinates, misuse of hyphens.
Despite the article being about the island, most of the article is connected with the "rounding of the Cape". Although worth mentioning, perhaps there should instead be an article looking of the concept of sailing around South America, which is a much broader concept (and entirely different) from an article on a cape. There is little about the island itself, nothing on geology, very little on geography, and the two lighthouses and the naval station are barely mentioned, even though they are the only structures.
The literature section (which I am uncertain of is appropriate at all) contains long quotes from what seems to be random works. Any world-renown landmark like this will make many appearances in popular culture. The section fails to describe why the cape is of any more importance in literature than other landmarks, or even why a literature section is notable.
The see also section needs to be trimmed. Either articles should be written into the text to provide context, or removed entirely.
The external links seems to be a linkfarm, and even includes a link to the German Wikipedia's article.
Some of the references lack page numbers.
Mixing of comment footnotes and references.
Disambiguation link.
14 dead links, including both references and external links.
It is difficult, using any of the five maps, to see where the cape actually is.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - This nomination is being placed on hold while the required article talk page notification (now required to be done prior to FAR) is completed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - This nomination is now ongoing. The two week FAR window starts as of the date of my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the following reliable sources?
As mentioned above, way too much linkfarming go on. I removed some that were dead and/or inappropriate (such as the links to the German and Spanish versions).
Also mentioned above, very many dead links. I tagged all the ones I found.
The footnotes that elaborate on info (e.g. 22, 24 and 25 in this revision) shouldn't be combined with the referencing footnotes.
I pruned out one instance of another Wikipedia article being cited.
I think the "Literature" section should go, or at least be re-focused.
Agreed, prose needs a once-over. Very many one- and two-sentence paragraphs, inappropriate bolding, etc.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include references, prose, MOS compliance, comprehensiveness and trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks. Could we get some comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as it stands. Interesting topic and a shame to see it go. I wouldn't remove the literature section myself. Lots of inline referencing needed and choppy paras. The information could do with some buffering which researching inline sources would help. There has been little activity here and I don't see any forthcoming. I'd be interested myself but I have way too much on my plate as is and would be nowhere near as good at finding refs as for other articles currently reviewed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist since almost none of my concerns were addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist agree with the concerns per Casliber (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 07:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist a shame to see it go, but it is simply below the criteria. Comments from myself and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) have not been addressed in ample time. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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