Wikipedia:Featured article review/Scottish Parliament Building/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) 3:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Globaltraveller, Wikiproject Architecture, Wikiproject Edingburgh, Wikiproject Scotland, 2023-01-27
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review for the following reasons;
- The archaeology section is a list which would be better served in prose.
- There is a controversy section, this info should be relocated elsewhere in the article.
- No section is called "Design" making it hard to find the architecture of the building. Instead that information is blended into a description of the modern workings of the building.
- No section is called "construction" so its hard to find the timeline of events while being built
- The Demonstrations section looks like a news item and should be removed.
- Note: Scottish Parliament was another FA by the same nominator, it was already delisted at FAR
Desertarun (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the comments here. In terms of the demonstration section, would argue this needs to be deleted. The demonstrations are not re the building but rather against the government, parties within or for a cause. If the demonstrations section is to be kept, then it would need an expansion to ensure sufficient coverage. To my mind, there have been dozens of demonstrations outside the Scottish Parliament ranging from issues for and against independence, to recent demonstrations over the Gender Recognition Bill. That aside perhaps the biggest omission from this article and why maybe it should not be FA anymore is it does not adequately cover the current building. As a recent visitor, there are numerous issues with the structure, much of it related to water ingress, a leaky roof and other building issues. Go one step further and one need only read the numerous news sources about lighting issues during debates that run pass standard opening hours... I would rate the article as B-class at present. Coldupnorth (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC the formatting of the article needs to be addressed, the last edits to the article were in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, insufficient engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section primarily concerned the article's organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. No edits since the start of this FAR. Desertarun (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - needed improvements not happening. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2023 (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) 13:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.