Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gregorian chant/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:Nikkimaria 08:37, 16 March 2013 [1].

Gregorian chant

Review commentary

Notified: Antandrus, Makemi, Martinuddin, WP Songs, WP Middle Ages, WP Christian music, WP Lutheranism

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is significantly under-referenced, with many sections and paragraphs being partially or completely unreferenced. This is the most major issue, with one section having a references-needed banner that has been present for almost two years. Other issues include:

The external links section needs a trim, and possible merging with the "learning resources" section.
The very short "Miscellaneous section" should be integrated with one of the other sections.
- Removed. Didn't seem relevant, and was unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21st century section is basically a non-bullet point pop culture section, and completely unferenced.
There is one dead link tag that should be addressed.
What is Ref #55 ("Gregoriaans ritme. Dutch Wikipedia contribution by Dr. Dirk van Kampen.")?
- Lol, citing another wikipedia. I will never understand the logic behind that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #53 (Dirk van Kampen) and #56 (Chris Hakkennes) need page numbers
Book ref formatting is all over the place - different page number formats, with/without book title, full info in notes for some and references for others, etc.

The lack of referencing is the most pressing issue, as I said above, but the other issues also need to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraphs 1 and 2 in the "History" section is unreferenced.
"Melodic restitution" is completely unreferenced.
File:Ad te levavi trimmed.jpg needs to be checked for categories.
File:Metz st pierre nonnains.jpg needs a source.
File:Epistle for the Solemn Mass of Easter Day.ogg, File:Loquetur Dominus.ogg, File:De profundis.ogg, File:Kyrie 55, Vatican ad lib. VI, Cambrai.ogg and File:Alma Redemptoris Mater.ogg needs an author information.
File:Neume2.jpg and File:Gregorian chant.gif also needs a source.
Ref 8 and 42 redirects to Oxford Music Online and one points to the login screen.
Ref 64 is a dead link and needs to be fixed.

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 08:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely written article, but does need additional referencing. This subject isn't my forte and the primary editors that brought this article to FA have apparently been inactive for some time. The issues covered in this article aren't of a controversial nature so delisting due to the issues listed above seems a shame. I can't see the urgency for this FAR though I concur that additional referencing should be added. Has anyone tried to reach out to the primary authors via email to inform them of this FAR?--MONGO 01:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we would use e-mail? Three of the four most frequent contributors are still active, and have been notified on their talk pages, per the guidelines. Also, there is no "urgency" to the FAR - it's just a FA from 2006 that has yet to be re-reviewed, has had a major cleanup banner for two years, and had a talk page notification made over a week ago with absolutely no response; that's not exactly a quick-moving process. Dana boomer (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the lack of sourcing is a major issue here. One section has been tagged unreferenced over 2 years, and I see many more swaths of unreferenced-ness. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been about three weeks since the last comment here, and the only changes to the article have been minor formatting and one typo fix. I don't see a concerted effort to improve it. Such swaths of unreferenced material are a serious issue. Chris857 (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably proceed to FARC, since another ten days have passed and the only subsequent edits have been one act of vandalism that was reverted. Chris857 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*bump* Its been over two weeks since the last comment, and we have seen the addition of one interwiki link and some minor formatting that does nothing to improve the issues outlined. Chris857 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include sourcing, images and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - no effort on improving this Chris857 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, mostly unchanged since nomination, no one appears to be working on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, due to lack of action and sections with no inline references. Prose looks pretty good at first glance so this is a shame as it looks more fixable than some I've seen at FARC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no issues have been resolved. JJ98 (Talk) 18:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, major sourcing issues and no-one working on it. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The big "unreferenced" section duplicated much of the rest of the article. Indeed, it was largely a summary of the rest of the article. I'll look at some of the other parts in the next couple days. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, I'm still seeing extensive unreferenced information, a cleanup banner, etc. Are you still planning to work on the article? It looks from the history like you encountered some resistance when you attempted to work on cleanup in late December/early January... Dana boomer (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Missing citations for entire paragraphs and sections. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:39, 20 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 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.