Wikipedia:Featured article review/Detroit/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 not promoted by User:Dana boomer 16:06, 1 March 2013 [1].

Detroit

Review commentary

Notified: WP United States, WP Cities, WP Michigan and WP Detroit

I am nominating this featured article for review because... It's completely one-sided. It was promoted to FA in 2006, and offered then quite a neutral view of the place. Since then, several less-than-perfect aspects have been made to disappear, and criticisms have been archived with the issues raised left unresolved.

Examples from the first quarter of the 2006 article :

"Detroit's crime rate has created international notoriety and a tarnished reputation. The city continues to struggle with the burdens of racial disharmony between itself and its suburban neighbors, and an antiquated economy."

"The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of heroin, and a crack cocaine epidemic. Drug-related property crimes and violence among competing drug dealers rose, and urban renewal efforts led to the razing of abandoned homes."

"The National Institute for Literacy declared in 1998 that 47% of Detroiters were "functionally illiterate.""

All of these statements were, as of 2006, properly sourced, as befit a FA. You'll find none of these in the current page, obviously biased, strongly in favor of an idyllic view of Detroit.

Such criticism has been made on the talk page, in August, then again in November : these comments disappeared from the talk page (left in a pristine condition...), archived without being answered.

As of today, I don't think the article is worth its FA-status anymore. Esprit Fugace (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions about who to notify are at WP:FAR; please do so, or post to WT:FAR asking for help. I see talk page issues going back more than a month, so I suppose we can consider instructions were met, even though Esprit Fugace did not raise FAR at article talk first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I think). Esprit Fugace (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The top contributors who are still active could also be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I briefly scanned through the article and saw that some unreferenced content has snuck into the article, which should be cleaned up one way or another (by adding citations or removing the content). The article isn't unsaveable by any means, so if an interested editor has the time and inclination to add sources, I think this could be salvaged. As for the nominator's comments, the literacy rate is over a decade out-of-date and new figures should be found if a figure is to be added for the purpose of commenting on Detroit in 2013. I haven't read the article thoroughly, and consequently can't give a solid opinion on whether POV issues exist. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria discussed above include referencing and NPOV. Dana boomer (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I *did* warn Thomas Paine of this FAR, he's the only one in the top 10 who edited the article in the last two months. It wouldn't have taken longer for you to do it in the first place rather than point the lack, check (as such), and then feel self-righteous about it. You're on your turf, I'm merely passing, I only came out of courtesy because on fr.wp DidierC mentioned that his attempt to amend just a tad the obvious bias in the article had been reverted, and has been advised to take the matter to the media, who might appreciate a lead about it. I thought it a bit extreme and wanted to try something a bit less drastic, keeping it in the community. Have it your way, I'm done here. Esprit Fugace (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No warrant for nomination. The article is one of the best and most referenced city articles. Show us a city article that is better in order to discuss it. Of the items mentioned, the only cited one, Forbes discredited the source of the original literacy report.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of two minds here. The statement by the nominator is akin to a withdrawal, and I'm not happy with how the whole nomination went down, from not notifying the primary contributors immediately to never posting on article talk as the instructions call for. On those grounds, I think a delegate could justify declaring the whole FAR out of process. On the other hand, I still think the level of citation could use some work; in particular, I see a lot of uncited items in the topography and college sections. If comparisons are sought, Istanbul and Dorset are two FAs passed recently that seem to have more thorough referencing. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove FA Status. I will say what I already said on the article's talk page: "This article manages to take the small and scattered bits of semi-good news about Detroit and combine them to make it sound like Detroit is doing better than ever. The decline of Detroit's economy, population, and overall well-being has been by far the most important theme of Detroit's history in the past several decades, and this article needs to speak of it. Until that happens, this article's FA status needs to be removed." I will throw NPOV out there as reason for removal of FA status, as this article gives extremely disproportional weight to the idea that Detroit is doing well. Other than that, I also see a lot of uncited material. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demote. The article fails to adequately cover essential themes of the topic, specifically the decline of a once-great city. I see boosterism from Thomas Paine1776 as the stumbling block to improvement. I see nobody stepping forward to make the required changes.
Note that the 2006 FA version was decidedly more truthful than what we see here now. It discussed how "Detroit leads the nation in terms of declining urban population" and how "Detroit's crime rate has created international notoriety and a tarnished reputation". It discussed "racial disharmony", "an antiquated economy" and "budget shortfalls". Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2013 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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