Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chaco Culture National Historical Park/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) 4:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Chaco Culture National Historical Park

Notified: Saravask, WP Indigenous peoples of NA, WP Archaeology, WP Architecture, WP Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WP National Register of Historic Places, WP Protected areas, WP New Mexico, WP Historic sites, talk page notice 2021-12-16

Review section

This is a 2007 promotion that was noticed almost a year ago, has had no involved contributors for over three years, and appears to be abandoned. None of the issues raised have been addressed: uncited text with citation needed tags as old as November 2014; HarvRef errors; MOS:SANDWICHing and poor image layout; See also should be evaluated with the need for each link explained or by working the links in to the article; citations do not have a consistent date format; References section, and a Sources section that appear to be the same thing; considerable outdated text and MOS:CURRENT issues, samples: In the 2002–03 fiscal year, the park's total annual operating budget was $1.434 million; Current park policy mandates partial restoration of excavated sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no progress in addressing issues (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC – the valid concerns above have not been addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC I'm concerned that there has been no progress to address the citation needed tags or any other issues. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, essentially no engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 15:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review include sourcing, datedness and style. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – nothing's happening here, and the significant issues with uncited text, formatting, etc. still remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - sourcing concerns have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues remain, no recent progress. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (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) 04:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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