The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the large unsourced sections. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [2].
As I noted on the article's talk page, the sources used in this article give me concerns about WP:FACR #1c and #1b. The article is sourced primary to a couple of web sources, several very old works from the 1800s, and some tertiary sources over 100 years old. A few snippets of the article are even direct word-for-word from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This is problematic from a featured article criteria perspective, due to the existence of the Mancall 2007 work listed in the further reading - a modern biography of Hakluyt published by Yale. As noted in my comments on the article's talk page, there is also very extensive discussion of Hakluyt in academic journals over the last few decades, although those of course will not be as comprehensive as the entire Mancall biography. I don't see how this article can meet 1b and 1c of the FA criteria using only the sources currently used. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because per the talk page comment by SandyGeorgia, "This article is badly outdated, has uncited text, and has too many long quotes." It has a cleanup banner at the top of the article, meaning it is unsuitable to be kept unless that issue can be resolved. There doesn't seem to be an ongoing improvement effort. ( t · c) buidhe 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [4].
This older featured article contains significant uncited text and some of the sources, while probably not wrong, aren't likely to be considered good for the FA level, such as the Skipper book. Littleboybrew has expressed concerns that chunks of the article were too closely taken from the Lord book. While Littleboybrew recently substantially rewrote parts of the article, the outstanding issues and residual concerns are severe enough to warrant review of featured article status. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I found many additional sources that were not used in this article, which I posted on the article's talk page, and uncited passages (including the whole "Cod fishery" section). Z1720 ( talk) 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the large unsourced sections. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [2].
As I noted on the article's talk page, the sources used in this article give me concerns about WP:FACR #1c and #1b. The article is sourced primary to a couple of web sources, several very old works from the 1800s, and some tertiary sources over 100 years old. A few snippets of the article are even direct word-for-word from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This is problematic from a featured article criteria perspective, due to the existence of the Mancall 2007 work listed in the further reading - a modern biography of Hakluyt published by Yale. As noted in my comments on the article's talk page, there is also very extensive discussion of Hakluyt in academic journals over the last few decades, although those of course will not be as comprehensive as the entire Mancall biography. I don't see how this article can meet 1b and 1c of the FA criteria using only the sources currently used. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because per the talk page comment by SandyGeorgia, "This article is badly outdated, has uncited text, and has too many long quotes." It has a cleanup banner at the top of the article, meaning it is unsuitable to be kept unless that issue can be resolved. There doesn't seem to be an ongoing improvement effort. ( t · c) buidhe 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [4].
This older featured article contains significant uncited text and some of the sources, while probably not wrong, aren't likely to be considered good for the FA level, such as the Skipper book. Littleboybrew has expressed concerns that chunks of the article were too closely taken from the Lord book. While Littleboybrew recently substantially rewrote parts of the article, the outstanding issues and residual concerns are severe enough to warrant review of featured article status. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I found many additional sources that were not used in this article, which I posted on the article's talk page, and uncited passages (including the whole "Cod fishery" section). Z1720 ( talk) 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply