Wikipedia:Featured article review/Montreal Screwjob/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 Dana boomer 22:55, 27 April 2012 [1].
Review commentary
[edit]Montreal Screwjob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: No individual editor notified, original nominator is inactive since 2007, WikiProject Professional wrestling
I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a major section that was added to the article three years after it passed FAC, this section was not reviewed under the criteria, and has been tagged with an original research tag (not by me, although after I raised concerns). I brought up some concerns on the talk page (and notified Wikiproject Professional Wresling), some/most of which have been taken care of, and the article has been improved since I brought them up. Having said that, it has been five years since the original nomination, with a lot of edits to it (including the additional section). I think it should be reassessed against the FAC, improved if possible, or delisted as a FA. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Besides that whole last section which should probably be deleted, there are some other issues, some of which were raised soon after the article's initial promotion to FA status. One thing is the fact that it consists largely of ungainly blobs of text. There's a lot of "he said" sorts of sentences and there's not much flow. I have a fair amount of pro wrestling knowledge and understand the article's subject matter quite well but find it difficult to comprehend by reading this text. And I suspect that someone who is not familiar with the subject matter would be lost. A lesser problem is the article's reliance on Meltzer's report, which is cited far more times than any other reference. If the article can be copyedited for flow and tone, I guess that would be a start. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to
FLRCFARC – Between the tagged Discrepencies section, the reference tagged as a dead link that appears unreliable anyway (number 55), and the presence of other possibly questionable sources such as About.com (ref 7), The History of WWE (refs 9 and 10), and Wrestling Information Archive (ref 70), I also don't think this meets current FA criteria. Needs quite a bit of work, unfortunately. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it get moved to Featured list removal candidates?--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't. This is what happens when you hold a director's role at one of these processes: you lose track of things when you go elsewhere. :-) It's fixed above, although the point I was trying to make stands. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it get moved to Featured list removal candidates?--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Issues brought up in the review section include referencing, prose and original research. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The issues brought up have remained unaddressed, and they are serious enough for the article to clearly fail the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:03, 20 April 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.