Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Arizona/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 removed by Marskell 09:40, 21 August 2009 [1].

History of Arizona

Review commentary

Wikiprojects notified. Author inactive for 3 years

2005 promotion. The article has a strong lack of citations. Infoplease is not a relibale source YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limited selection of sources has produced an unbalanced selection of information that ignores many important political and demographic events in Arizona's history. Some examples of this are:
1. Except for a short mention in the "Recent events" section showing authorization of the Central Arizona Project, the article completely ignores the long running battles between Arizona and California over Colorado River water. As the dominate political issue in Arizona's history (with the possible exception of the fight for statehood), this issue deserves better mention.
2. There is no mention of the post-World War II immigration to the state that changed Arizona from a largely rural population with strong Democratic leaning to a Republican majority state with the population clustered in the state's urban areas.
3. Selection of listed political leaders outside the "Recent events" section shows a strong emphasis on national instead of state-wide impact. While Barry Goldwater and Sandra Day O'Connor are have had clear impact at the national level, persons such as Carl Hayden, Ernest McFarland, and George W. P. Hunt have been more important to the development of Arizona.
4. There is no mention of the movement of the capital from Fort Whipple to Prescott, then to Tucson, back to Prescott, and finally to Phoenix.

This problem would be best addressed by incorporating material from one or two additional historians to help minimize the personal biases of any one author. --Allen3 ^talk 09:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, this is a wide miss. The "history" stops dead at the time the sources were published, in the mid-nineties. Hence, not a fart about Arizona's most active period beginning with the massive influx of residents in the late nineties through 2005 or 2006. There are many influential sources missing. Even if the whole thing was cited, it's poorly researched. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Massively under-cited, with many paragraphs having no citations at all. As stated by the two previous reviewers, the article seems to cherry pick (probably unintentionally) portions of Arizona history. The last section ends at an odd spot because of when the article was promoted. There's no information about the last three years of Arizona history, which have seen a presidential candidacy and a governor promoted to a presidential cabinet position. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, quality of research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my comments above. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I've looked into obtaining books to work on this, but it's a massive project and it's not clear what the best sources are. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per criteria concerns, particularly the part about recent history. Too much work to fix this one. Eubulides (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per JKBrooks85, Eubulides and Andy Walsh. No one is working on the article. No serious edits since the FAR nomination. —mattisse (Talk) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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