Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rugby World Cup/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 4:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: WikiProject Rugby union
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced text and tables scattered throughout, areas which have not been kept up to date, and short paragraphs and proseline in several sections. I also have concerns about the depth of coverage, the article is quite short and some subsections are tables without any explanatory or contextual text. CMD (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I see CUA 27 has been working on this some. CUA 27, do you feel like you'll be able to address these points? Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've made some improvements, and there is still room for improvement, but I don't think I'll be able to spend much time on this article over the next few weeks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CUA 27: Are you interested in fixing this up when you have more time? If so, FAR co-ords are usually amenable to placing reviews on hold until editors can devote time to an article. Just post below when you think you can devote more time to this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the opportunity and your patience. Realistically, it would be September before I’d be able to really dig into this. If you can wait until then, great; if not, I understand. CUA 27 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @CUA 27: Are you interested in fixing this up when you have more time? If so, FAR co-ords are usually amenable to placing reviews on hold until editors can devote time to an article. Just post below when you think you can devote more time to this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've made some improvements, and there is still room for improvement, but I don't think I'll be able to spend much time on this article over the next few weeks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- CUA 27, it's now September - are you at a place where you would be able to address the issues raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the opportunity, but I’m still short on free time these days and don’t expect to be able to turn to this in the near future. CUA 27 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged as needing additional references. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - lacks citations, outdated figures including in the media section; the revenue table suggests that it brought in no revenue in 2019, as well as other similar issues. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist verifiability issues have yet to be resolved. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 17 September 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) 04:16, 18 September 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.