Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cædmon/archive1

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) 5:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [1].

Cædmon

Notified: Daniel.odonnell, England, Poetry

Review section

2006 promotion, FAR notice left by SandyGeorgia on 28 January, stating "There is a good deal of uncited text, and a MOS review is needed." with Dudley Miles concurring. There have not been substantial improvements to the article since then. b uidhe 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article never was an FA according to current standards as it had considerable unreferenced text even when promoted in 2006. See [2]. Unless someone is prepared to embark on a major project to bring it up to FA standard, this seems to me to be a candidate for a quick move to be a removal candidate. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. b uidhe 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

Cædmon ... is the earliest English (Northumbrian) poet Right off the bat the writing's subpar. That "poet" is linked also doesn't help.
Streonæshalch (Whitby Abbey) This identification is repeatedly made but never directly cited as far as I can tell.
"the art of song" is never brought up in the body.
Cædmon is one of twelve Anglo-Saxon poets identified in medieval sources... is brought up only in the lead and the following footnote.

And so on. This generally violates LEAD in that the lead serves as an introduction rather than a summary. Given Cædmon's importance I'd hate to see this be delisted; this looks like a possible rescue for those interested, but some effort is required. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

In ¶References but not in ¶Notes: Princi Braccini, G. 1988/1989; Bessinger, J. B. Jr. 1974; Fry, D. K. 1975/1979; Hieatt, C. B. 1985.; Klaeber, F. 1912; Miletich, J. S. 1983.; Morland, L. 1992.
In ¶Notes but not in ¶References: Ó Carragáin 2005; Catalogus testium ueritatis 1562; Stanley 1995;
Spotchecks: I checked Lester 1974, added p.no and reworded slightly to avoid CP; Ireland 1986: this is an unpublished source—can we use this one? I checked Dumville 1981 (bundled with Ireland): does not mention Streonæshalch or Hilda, but does support Cædmon's death and fire at Coldingham Abbey. Nicely paraphrased.

That's that for now. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 03:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no progress, no one engaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per issues raised above. b uidhe 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Unsourced statements at the end of the "Dates" section, in the first paragraph of the "Sources and analogues" section and in footnotes 42 and 43. Style issues include the red links in footnote 12, which have been there since promotion even though those articles will never be written. DrKay (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. As discussed above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (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) 15:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.