Wikipedia:Featured article review/Elizabeth II/archive0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: not done
I am nominating this featured article for review because this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia and it hasn't been reviewed since 2012. I would like to get consensus on whether this still qualifies as a featured article. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Interstellarity, have you listed your concerns on the article's talk page, as required in Step 1 of the instructions at the top of WP:FAR? And do you have any concerns wrt to the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been kept to a reasonable length, great work. Issues immediately apparent from a quick scan:
- image sandwiching, which should be easy to fix
- 1 metro ref, not a good blp source
- Should memoirs of other people be cited? It's not technically BLPSELFPUB but given that memoirs may have lower editorial oversight I would avoid it. I think better sources can be found to replace Thatcher & Trudeau refs if these details are actually important.
- overreliance on news sources in place of higher-quality retrospective writings. There are some sources on Google Scholar that could be cited. (t · c) buidhe 13:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello @Nikkimaria,
- The reason I nominated this is because it's been a while since the article has been reviewed. I don't have any concerns related to the article's content. I just think that since it's been a long time since the article has been reviewed and it's one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia that it would be due for a review. Interstellarity (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the WP:FAR instructions? You also have not done the notifications. I suggest this FAR be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello @SandyGeorgia,
- This is my first time doing a featured article review and I skimmed through the instructions. I didn't realize that I had to leave a note on the talk page discussing the article issues beforehand. In my next FAR, I plan to do that from now on. Interstellarity (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the WP:FAR instructions? You also have not done the notifications. I suggest this FAR be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been kept to a reasonable length, great work. Issues immediately apparent from a quick scan:
- Close nom, out of process; this is not how FAR should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria, I can fix articlehistory via a move to archive0 should you remove this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks SandyGeorgia; procedurally keeping this as out of process. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok Nikkimaria, after FACbot goes through, I will adjust the articlehistory via moving this to archive0 so that it is not recorded in AH as a "real" keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks SandyGeorgia; procedurally keeping this as out of process. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria, I can fix articlehistory via a move to archive0 should you remove this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.