Wikipedia:Featured article review/War against Nabis/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) 2:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Kyriakos, Wandalstouring, Robth, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Greece, WP MILHIST, WP Rome, 2021-02-22
Review section
[edit]While this one looks fine on the surface, it relies very heavily on largely unsupported referencing to two problematic sources. Livy is an ancient primary source who is used often alone without anything to support it, and Smith 1873 is also used heavily and mainly unsupported and is a pretty dated source. With such a heavy reliance on Livy and Smith, this one doesn't meet WP:FACR 1c. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - no engagement beyond a handful of copy edits. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - still no engagement. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - nothing's happening here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues in the review section focus on sourcing. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Poor sourcing, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, this could likely be semi-accelerated 10-day close if nobody steps up soon. There's no engagement at all and there seems to be consensus this needs a heavy rewrite. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I don't think that an FA should rely this much on an ancient source, uncritically. Livy is a primary source and the use of his works should be put in context, with the use of modern, secondary sources. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - uncritical reliance on Greco-Roman-period sources raises substantial sourcing issues. Citations to modern scholarly perspectives are a must when one is dealing with Polybius, Livy, etc. Otherwise, problems with OR and due weight inevitably result, as they have here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A common reason given for delisting is the significant reliance on primary sources. Does an FA have to avoid the use of primary sources, or is it more nuanced than that? I'd be grateful to someone who could clarify this for me. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." - That is policy for Wikipedia articles in general, but Featured Articles require better sourcing than that. Mercenary War and First Punic War are examples of how to write about Ancient topics without citing Ancient sources directly. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:46, 11 April 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) 02:38, 16 April 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.