Wikipedia:Featured article review/Peru/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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Peru

Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([2]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([3] and [4]).

I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKay (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

Moved here as no action for one week since DrKay's comment above. Article's length as such is 36 kb readable prose, which is within generally accepted article size limits. Outstanding concerns are five dead links, and unreferenced segments. Image rationalisation may be needed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements include, but are no means limited to, "resistance was suppressed when the Spaniards annihilated [the Incas]", "the church came to play an important role in the acculturation of the natives", "massive native depopulation", and "reduced the power, prominence and importance of Lima". Entire paragraphs have no sources, or are sourced to "discover-peru.org" and "allempires.com", which do not appear to meet the criterion for high-quality reliable sources. Potentially non-neutral statements without counter-balancing comments include "people were forcefully converted", "the church employed the Inquisition, making use of torture", "marred by atrocities", "symbols of the human rights violations", and comparing "free and fair" elections with "tainted" ones without providing a source. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I hadn't noticed it, but the Black Legend is heavy in the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delist many unsourced statements and even completely uncited paragraphs throughout the article. Simply not up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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