Wikipedia:Featured article review/Joy Division/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.

Notified: Talk:Joy Division

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets the requirements of a FA. It was promoted more than 7 years ago. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:FAR instructions. I see you noticed talk only ~~five~~ four days ago: is there an earlier notice? If not, this FAR is premature and should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:FAR. It states "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks". Typically. Not must. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On a (very) brief scroll-through it at least seems well-cited and WesleyDodds usually did a good job keeping his FAs in good order. What are your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe Lugnuts has nominated at FAR before, and knows we need a list of actionable items, and that notifications must be done. There's nothing here or here at FAR, and I still suggest this is a premature nom that should be withdrawn. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a previous nomination, then good luck. I guess you're OK with sub-standard articles having the FA tag. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a meaningful critique is posted here, I'm certaingly willing to engange. Article is FA atandard IMO, though no article is perfect. I would welcome feedback, frankly. And thanks for the ping. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing this on hold. The pre-FAR step of raising issues on talk is intended to give interested editors a chance to address perceived problems with the article. However, no specific issues were brought forward on article talk or in this nomination, and there are no maintenance tags on the article, which appears adequately cited and otherwise compliant with the criteria. While it's certainly possible that the article has issues, none are readily apparent. Lugnuts, please let us know specifically what you feel needs to be addressed here, and notify the main contributors and WikiProjects as outlined in the instructions so we can proceed. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been reviewed since it was promoted more than seven years ago, hence why I am asking for the review. The FA process has changed alot in that time and I don't think it's up to the current standards. In other words, if this was put through as a nom today, it would fail. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This review has been closed; no specific issues were identified. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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