Wikipedia:Featured article review/Fauna of Australia/archive1
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 removed by Dana boomer 19:01, 11 January 2012 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Fauna of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- User:PDH has over 500 edits to article but has not edited at all since 2007. There are no other editors that have over 40 edits to article within the past year. Notified only project listed on article: Australian Wikipedians' notice board.
Article was promoted in 2005 and a FAR notice issued in 2009. It is still not up to current standards.
- 1c I've counted over 60 citation needed tags in place but there are even more areas not tagged that lack citations. One main source used in this article is Egerton's Encyclopedia of Australian wildlife and citing an encyclopedia article with another encyclopedia is poor practice and not considered a "high-quality" source.
- MoS WP:LINK, WP:SEEALSO and MOS:Images should be adhered to. Obviously the 1c trouble is the major factor here. There isn't much reason at this point to review further. Brad (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the tags are definitely warranted, but just from a glance over there are one or two that might be a bit zealous for a summary article. Apart from that, alot of the statements about a particular species should be sourced in their own articles, so they should be fairly easy to bring over. The linking is a bit excessive also: links to things like Northern Territory, etc, aren't really helpful to the reader. Nightw 06:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Issues raised in the FAR section include sourcing and MOS compliance. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Since nomination there have only been vandalism reverts. Nothing is going on otherwise. Brad (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist reluctantly - A couple of years ago I did some bits and pieces, but realised this article needs a concerted effort. Yes there are alot of tags but what surprised me was how much information has changed even since the production of some tertiary sources which were used for it. See some discussion at Talk:Fauna_of_Australia#Mammals_of_Australia and here. Sorry but I don't have the time for this one presently, and looks like no-one else does either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist reluctantly, I've been working on just addressing the citation need tags and many are zealous but there are as many which are valid. Even if I could address all the necessary tags in the next week the prose would need work as would some of the images along with the overall layout. It needs more work than can be achieved in a short time frame, its been hanging aournd for too long time to close this. Gnangarra 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.