Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nostradamus/archive2

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) 7:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [1].

Nostradamus

Notified: Jim62sch, PL, WP Bio, WP France, WP Astrology, WP Skepticism, WP Med, 2020-12-16

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editors have not edited for several years and that has not been maintained to standard. There has been no response to the 2020-12-16 talk page notification. Other concerns were raised at the previous out-of-process FAR, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nostradamus/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spot a large amount of uncited text here; there are several unsourced sentences and large paragraphs that rely on a single reference at the end. This article was promoted back when inline citations were not compulsory in FAs and it shows; fails 1. c) at the moment, particularly the bit claims... are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Then, we have references to popular culture in the Works section, the Interpretations section, and then again in the section In popular culture; there's repetition and trivia in the article. There has been a lot of fascination with Nostradamus over the centuries and it is unclear to me if all those claims made by unnamed people that are currently listed in the Popular claims section are even worth mentioning. That run-on sentence starting with With the exception of Roberts... reads like a list of trivia. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, edits since nomination, no improvement (although we did get one of pet peeves about women who are little more than their uterus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - The editing isn't addressing the outstanding major issues. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Significant issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist No significant improvement since nomination. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 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) 17:38, 27 February 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.