Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [1].

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland

URFA nom

Review commentary

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.

As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).

All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibu tt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?

since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?

Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think

last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Update at nine days; very little progress on substantive issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Move to FARC, at the two-week mark, there has been some improvement, but in spite of walls of text on the talk page outlining the problems with MOS, prose, citations, and comprehensiveness, the substantive issues have not been addressed, and some unwillingness to address those issues is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

The review section largely concerned MOS, referencing, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An IP edit that needs to be verified by someone who has the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no siginficant improvement, no ongoing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "no significant improvement"? Oh. I guess that was insignificant then! Ferma (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - My sincere apologies, Ferma, for the unfortunate word choice. Your copyedit is appreciated, but there are still significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Aw, shucks, it is nice to be appreciated :) There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, and the article has seen a fair amount of editing in the last couple of months. Could you briefly précis the outstanding problems? I think I have done all I can, but others might be willing to deal with them. Ferma (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Have removed all the overlinking, and fixed a few dash errors. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have tagged all paras needing citations. From my brief look at the article and skim of the talk page, I believe that this article should be delisted. If someone fixes all the issues, it can be re-nominated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Tagged for citation, expansion and gallery section. On prose, I would prefer to see fewer vague terms of size, such as "some 1,200", "some 3,000", etc. DrKiernan (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2015 (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) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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