The article was kept by User:Nikkimaria 08:47, 12 April 2013 [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in 2005 and has never been re-reviewed. In the past seven years, the featured article criteria have become more strict, and unfortunately this article has not kept pace. Specifically:
Overall, this article doesn't meet the featured article criteria as they stand today. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I do not have access to the sources, but will help with reference formatting. It looks like approximately half of the items in Further reading were used as references and could, with careful auditing, be deleted from Further reading; willing to do this as well. Maralia ( talk) 02:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, uncited text, tags, and not enough progress. Why is this still in the FAR stage after many months? FAR lasts two weeks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Further reading needs to be pruned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
In response to Dana's nudge, I've done some work on the reference formatting today, including standardizing the cites to the Barbara McClintock Papers at NML. There are a few stray refs that could use better formatting still (Letter from Barbara McClintock to Maize geneticist Oliver Nelson and The golden age of corn genetics at Cornell as seen though the eyes of M. M. Rhoades) and I did not prune for listed-but-unused references. I am all for list-defined references and happy to see them in use, but my experience with them is limited thus far, so I tried to be extra careful with my changes; hope I've not botched anything. The article is certainly looking much better. Maralia ( talk) 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by User:Nikkimaria 08:47, 12 April 2013 [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in 2005 and has never been re-reviewed. In the past seven years, the featured article criteria have become more strict, and unfortunately this article has not kept pace. Specifically:
Overall, this article doesn't meet the featured article criteria as they stand today. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC) reply
I do not have access to the sources, but will help with reference formatting. It looks like approximately half of the items in Further reading were used as references and could, with careful auditing, be deleted from Further reading; willing to do this as well. Maralia ( talk) 02:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, uncited text, tags, and not enough progress. Why is this still in the FAR stage after many months? FAR lasts two weeks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Further reading needs to be pruned. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC) reply
In response to Dana's nudge, I've done some work on the reference formatting today, including standardizing the cites to the Barbara McClintock Papers at NML. There are a few stray refs that could use better formatting still (Letter from Barbara McClintock to Maize geneticist Oliver Nelson and The golden age of corn genetics at Cornell as seen though the eyes of M. M. Rhoades) and I did not prune for listed-but-unused references. I am all for list-defined references and happy to see them in use, but my experience with them is limited thus far, so I tried to be extra careful with my changes; hope I've not botched anything. The article is certainly looking much better. Maralia ( talk) 19:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply