The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006, and for a biography of a notable actress there's surprisingly been no checkup to make sure it still meets the criteria. My concerns are:
Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Dana boomer: I gather it's too late to save this one? I'm confused that you've delisted but the FA star and FA is still intact in article and talk page. Does the bot really take over a week? Time to sack it and get a new one! If it's still open which it seems isn't the case I'd be happy to tackle it within a couple of weeks as the Cillian Murphy article also needs salvaging. I gather it's too late, a pity. Looking at it quickly it seems sourcing is the main issue which wouldn't require too much and it could use strengthening and expansion and analysis. Perhaps delisting is best for the time being as to really do an actress of Keaton's stature justice it would really need to be thoroughly researched again which would take a lot of time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It definitely shouldn't take over a week!! Perhaps ask User:ThaddeusB or something or whoever created the related bot about the problem it's presenting. Perhaps you might get a swifter response and assistance reporting it at the village pump tech. Yes, I'll start on Murphy tomorrow most likely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is a 2007 promotion that has taken on large amounts of uncited text; there are also MOS issues. Talk page notified 30 Dec. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I think that promotion was not from 2007 but later because when I started to work and significantly improve this article in 2008 there was no bronze star. There are no large amounts of uncited text actually as almost ALL added text comes from five main (and the best) sources about T-26 - 1. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). Legkiy tank T-26. 1931–1941 (The Light Tank T-26. 1931–1941). Frontline Illustration No. 1 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 79. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 2. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). T-26: mashiny na ego base (T-26: The Vehicles on its Base). Frontline Illustration No. 4 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 80. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 3. Kolomiets, Maxim (2007). T-26. Tyazhelaya sud'ba legkogo tanka (T-26. The Heavy Fate of the Light Tank) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, Strategiya KM, EKSMO. p. 128. ISBN 978-5-699-21871-4; 4. Svirin, Mikhail (2007). Bronya krepka. Istoriya Sovetskogo tanka 1919–1937 (The armour is strong. A history of Soviet tank 1919–1937) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, EKSMO. p. 384. ISBN 978-5-699-13809-8; 5. Solyankin, Alexander; Pavlov Ivan, Pavlov Mikhail, Zheltov Igor (2002). Otechestvennye bronirovannye mashiny. XX vek. Tom 1: 1905–1941 (Native Armoured Vehicles. 20th century. Vol. 1: 1905–1941) (in Russian). Moscow: Exprint. p. 344. ISBN 5-94038-030-1. Of course, such text based on good books (which based on real archive data) improved the initial article a lot (which was based initially on quite poor and sometimes incorrect foreign literature sources). To cite every sentence in the text abstract belonged to the information taken from the aforementioned sources seems to be unnecessary (I prefer to add citation(s) after the whole text abstract always), nevertheless, I will add the corresponding citations after some sentences and abstracts in the T-26 article, specially in the "Combat history" section which seems to be not finished yet and has no citations...To fix everything with citations takes just 10-15 min as in the majority part of the text the correct and necessary citations are present! With best regards, -- Vladimir Historian ( talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, insufficient improvement. If someone is able to add citations, the article has changed significantly enough that it needs reevaluation per all criteria. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to fall short of FA standards for prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), sourcing (1c), neutrality (1d), and MOS compliance (2a). This one doesn't seem to have been watched for a while; half of the lead section had been deleted at some point and no one noticed. I've restored that, but issues remain. I left a note on the article's talk page a week or so back, but got no response.
I'd love to see this one remain an FA, but it seems like this one will need a lot of work to get there. I'll ping the four top contributors to the article (who include the original nominator), participants in the original FA review, and all WikiProjects to which this article belongs. Thanks, Khazar2 ( talk) 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because... This article was proposed at WP:TFA/R and I stated that I would not have supported this article at FAC. FAC3 was not rigorous, and it appears that many suggestions for improving the article at past reviews and on the talk page were not addressed.
I believe that this article should be reviewed and this article delisted. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
ColonelHenry, you were supposed to have notified relevant WikiProjects and flagged those at the top of this page; that is the first step in bringing in more topic experts to help bring the article to standard. The absence of known science editors in the history of this article is noticeable; I do see Materialscientist has been in there, but not much.
With a concentrated effort, it could be possible to bring this article to standard in time for it to appear mainpage this year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've only followed this peripherally but would have opposed at TFAR (and I think it's a shame it was even listed there) and agree that it should end up here. I did look at it briefly when I saw the TFAR nomination and here are a very few examples of the types of problems I noticed:
One other thing I'd mention is that probably because it's structured chronologically from top to bottom it's become quite choppy with "this happened" and "that happened" because the structure lacks flexibility. The structure, too, I think makes it difficult to set out his scientific achievements in a coherent fashion. Finally I'd note that from looking at the FAC and this version that passed, Slp1 wasn't the nominator and should be commended for the repair work that has been made so far, and from what I can see in history seems to have been made last year in response to a similar TFA request. Anyway, we need lots of concrete examples and reasons to delist so here's a start. Unfortunately I won't be able to help but I can't see this being done quickly and don't think it should be rushed. Victoria ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I was doing research on Hawking at the library. I went to the Wikipedia page and skimmed through it. It's very disjointed and choppily written. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that it had the bronze star. Officialpubliclibrary ( talk) 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is a 2006 FA that hasn't been kept up to date with changing standards. Here were the issues I posted on the talk page, which are still relevant:
The notification of work needed on the talk page brought no response. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006, and for a biography of a notable actress there's surprisingly been no checkup to make sure it still meets the criteria. My concerns are:
Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Dana boomer: I gather it's too late to save this one? I'm confused that you've delisted but the FA star and FA is still intact in article and talk page. Does the bot really take over a week? Time to sack it and get a new one! If it's still open which it seems isn't the case I'd be happy to tackle it within a couple of weeks as the Cillian Murphy article also needs salvaging. I gather it's too late, a pity. Looking at it quickly it seems sourcing is the main issue which wouldn't require too much and it could use strengthening and expansion and analysis. Perhaps delisting is best for the time being as to really do an actress of Keaton's stature justice it would really need to be thoroughly researched again which would take a lot of time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
It definitely shouldn't take over a week!! Perhaps ask User:ThaddeusB or something or whoever created the related bot about the problem it's presenting. Perhaps you might get a swifter response and assistance reporting it at the village pump tech. Yes, I'll start on Murphy tomorrow most likely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is a 2007 promotion that has taken on large amounts of uncited text; there are also MOS issues. Talk page notified 30 Dec. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I think that promotion was not from 2007 but later because when I started to work and significantly improve this article in 2008 there was no bronze star. There are no large amounts of uncited text actually as almost ALL added text comes from five main (and the best) sources about T-26 - 1. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). Legkiy tank T-26. 1931–1941 (The Light Tank T-26. 1931–1941). Frontline Illustration No. 1 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 79. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 2. Kolomiets, Maxim; Svirin Mikhail (2003). T-26: mashiny na ego base (T-26: The Vehicles on its Base). Frontline Illustration No. 4 (in Russian). Moscow: Strategiya KM. p. 80. ISBN 5-901266-01-3; 3. Kolomiets, Maxim (2007). T-26. Tyazhelaya sud'ba legkogo tanka (T-26. The Heavy Fate of the Light Tank) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, Strategiya KM, EKSMO. p. 128. ISBN 978-5-699-21871-4; 4. Svirin, Mikhail (2007). Bronya krepka. Istoriya Sovetskogo tanka 1919–1937 (The armour is strong. A history of Soviet tank 1919–1937) (in Russian). Moscow: Yauza, EKSMO. p. 384. ISBN 978-5-699-13809-8; 5. Solyankin, Alexander; Pavlov Ivan, Pavlov Mikhail, Zheltov Igor (2002). Otechestvennye bronirovannye mashiny. XX vek. Tom 1: 1905–1941 (Native Armoured Vehicles. 20th century. Vol. 1: 1905–1941) (in Russian). Moscow: Exprint. p. 344. ISBN 5-94038-030-1. Of course, such text based on good books (which based on real archive data) improved the initial article a lot (which was based initially on quite poor and sometimes incorrect foreign literature sources). To cite every sentence in the text abstract belonged to the information taken from the aforementioned sources seems to be unnecessary (I prefer to add citation(s) after the whole text abstract always), nevertheless, I will add the corresponding citations after some sentences and abstracts in the T-26 article, specially in the "Combat history" section which seems to be not finished yet and has no citations...To fix everything with citations takes just 10-15 min as in the majority part of the text the correct and necessary citations are present! With best regards, -- Vladimir Historian ( talk) 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC, two weeks, insufficient improvement. If someone is able to add citations, the article has changed significantly enough that it needs reevaluation per all criteria. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to fall short of FA standards for prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), sourcing (1c), neutrality (1d), and MOS compliance (2a). This one doesn't seem to have been watched for a while; half of the lead section had been deleted at some point and no one noticed. I've restored that, but issues remain. I left a note on the article's talk page a week or so back, but got no response.
I'd love to see this one remain an FA, but it seems like this one will need a lot of work to get there. I'll ping the four top contributors to the article (who include the original nominator), participants in the original FA review, and all WikiProjects to which this article belongs. Thanks, Khazar2 ( talk) 16:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Dana boomer ( talk) 16:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this featured article for review because... This article was proposed at WP:TFA/R and I stated that I would not have supported this article at FAC. FAC3 was not rigorous, and it appears that many suggestions for improving the article at past reviews and on the talk page were not addressed.
I believe that this article should be reviewed and this article delisted. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
ColonelHenry, you were supposed to have notified relevant WikiProjects and flagged those at the top of this page; that is the first step in bringing in more topic experts to help bring the article to standard. The absence of known science editors in the history of this article is noticeable; I do see Materialscientist has been in there, but not much.
With a concentrated effort, it could be possible to bring this article to standard in time for it to appear mainpage this year. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment - I've only followed this peripherally but would have opposed at TFAR (and I think it's a shame it was even listed there) and agree that it should end up here. I did look at it briefly when I saw the TFAR nomination and here are a very few examples of the types of problems I noticed:
One other thing I'd mention is that probably because it's structured chronologically from top to bottom it's become quite choppy with "this happened" and "that happened" because the structure lacks flexibility. The structure, too, I think makes it difficult to set out his scientific achievements in a coherent fashion. Finally I'd note that from looking at the FAC and this version that passed, Slp1 wasn't the nominator and should be commended for the repair work that has been made so far, and from what I can see in history seems to have been made last year in response to a similar TFA request. Anyway, we need lots of concrete examples and reasons to delist so here's a start. Unfortunately I won't be able to help but I can't see this being done quickly and don't think it should be rushed. Victoria ( talk) 00:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I was doing research on Hawking at the library. I went to the Wikipedia page and skimmed through it. It's very disjointed and choppily written. I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that it had the bronze star. Officialpubliclibrary ( talk) 15:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was removed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is a 2006 FA that hasn't been kept up to date with changing standards. Here were the issues I posted on the talk page, which are still relevant:
The notification of work needed on the talk page brought no response. Dana boomer ( talk) 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply