Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gettysburg Address/archive2
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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Kaisershatner, Donaldecoho, Tedickey, BartBenjamin, North Shoreman, WP American politics, WP Pennsylvania, WP US Presidents, talk page notification 2020-11-29
Review section
[edit]This 2005 promotion was last reviewed in 2008. It has uncited text, poor sources, dead links and incomplete citations. It has good bones, and a tune-up might see it through FAR if someone takes an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh goodness. I can try to take on some of this, but I'm not the greatest and writing about literature. I also have some weighting concerns - why is the section speculating about platform research as long as the legacy section? I also have some concerns about OR in the platform location section, why I have tagged. That section will likely need nuked and rewritten in a shorter form. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Layout needs a lot of work as well. I cut a couple off-topic block quotes, and that just makes things look even worse. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - I took a crack at some of the issues, but I don't have access to a couple key print sources, and I've got a lot going on, so I don't think I'm going to be able to fix this. I could help if some other engagement came about, but this seems to be going nowhere. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried to find a source about the Everett Copy of the Gettysburg Address, which says Lincoln sent to Everett to his request, but alas, I couldn't find one. Many of the websites either copied the text from Wikipedia or aren't reliable.Blue Jay (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC The References and Bibliography sections will require a lot of work, and there are lots of Harv warnings. Some references need to be shortened and moved to the Bibliography, while uncited sources in the bibliography need to be analysed and referenced in the article. I also see lots of citation needed and original research tags. This will require lots of work from editors, and I don't know if FARC/FAR is the best place to fix these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and weighting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I started to make an attempt, but some of this is so problematic I don't think it can get easily fixed during a FAR. IMO the lengthy section about the location of the speech is the most deficient part. This needs more work than can really be done in the scope of a FAR with minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, original research, dead links and missing page numbers. DrKay (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - The sources I tried to find to patch up the Citation needed tags copied form Wikipedia, so sadly, I prefer to delist it. Blue Jay (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2021 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.