Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough/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) 5:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) [1].
Review section
[edit]in early August i pointed out some major issues with this article, and while someone did do a small copyedit, the issues remain. below i've just copied my talk page comment, as i believe the points are still valid.
this article has been an FA since 2007 and not reviewed since. it has several issues requiring an FAR if not resolved:
- this is the only FA with a "multiple issues" template, both issues being over a year old
- unencyclopedic tone, e.g. "
The Duchess was always ready to give her advice, express her opinions, antagonize with outspoken censure, and insist on having her say on every possible occasion.[39] However, she had a charm and vivaciousness admired by many, and she could easily delight those she met with her wit.[39]
", "The Duchess died, in the words of Tobias Smollett, "immensely rich and very little regretted, either by her own family or the world in general",[83] but her efforts to continue the Marlborough legacy cannot be ignored.
" - unsourced content, including several whole paragraphs and most of the "children" section
- in agreement with the "written like a story" tag, the sections are titled weirdly, as if book chapters
in general, this is pretty far from FA-quality and wouldn't even meet the GA criteria if reviewed today; it may even need a full rewrite. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Inappropriate formatting (the dropdown list in the first paragraph), story-like tone, two maintenance tags, citation neededs out the ass... Might I suggest invoking the speedy delist per the precedent? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- no objections from me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: @Casliber: @DrKay: what say you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly in need of improvement, but I don't think to the extent to warrant speedy - despite the tagging, more of it is sourced than isn't, and the tone is theoretically fixable within the scope of an FAR if anyone is so inclined. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- i'll defer to you guys; i've got a lot of work to do IRL so i don't have the bandwidth to really sit down and overhaul this article. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly in need of improvement, but I don't think to the extent to warrant speedy - despite the tagging, more of it is sourced than isn't, and the tone is theoretically fixable within the scope of an FAR if anyone is so inclined. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: @Casliber: @DrKay: what say you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- no objections from me ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC concerns in the orange banner remain, and based on the conversation above I think the article is still waiting for an editor to commit to fixing everything. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged for needing additional references, unsourced statements and style issues. DrKay (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- i support delisting as well, as i don't think there's any way to save this article's quality without a near-entire rewrite from scratch. i do not have time for that nor do i expect that anyone else here does ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Concerns remain, little progress to address them. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2024 (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) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.