Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive3

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 01:15, 12 January 2015.

Selena

Notified: Secret, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Musicians WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Latin music

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails multiple FA criteria, and there are unaddressed {{context}}, {{leadtooshort}}, and {{Missing information}} tags from October 2014. The edition that passed for FA wasn't perfect either, but I will grant that the criteria was less demanding back when it was promoted back in July 2006. Right now, here is how it compares against the FA criteria:

1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

Could use a copyedit. Here are examples of phrasing that could be more professional:

"Selena's stardom got a big boost"
"Selena and her band received yet more accolades in 1994"
"The song got to number one"
"These demonstrations of community involvement won her loyalty from her fan base"

1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

Not at all. As indicated by the {{Missing information}} and {{context}} tags, and my comment here, this article is lacking a significant amount of detail. Specifically, there is nothing on her artistry—musical style, themes, influences, critical commentary (not counting the listing among "100 Coolest Americans in History" or Howard Stern's commentary on her when she died), etc.—and does not give much of her life outside her career

1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

Not quite. I'm not convinced "NewsTaco" is a reliable source. Additionally, some of its content is harder to verify as there are 3 HARVref errors, several dead links, and the following statements are missing citations:

"Over the next three years, not under a recording contract, she released six more albums"
"Selena scheduled her English album for release in the summer of 1995."

1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

No. Its primary focus is her impact and commercial success, doesn't focus enough on other aspects. This is something I might expect from a fansite, not an encyclopedia.

1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process

~~Yes. The article has had no substantial revisions lately.~~ No. An edit war (although it came from disruption) lead to the article being fully protected.

2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections

No. As indicated by the {{leadtooshort}} tag, this doesn't have enough information to fully summarize the article.

2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

Doesn't seem too bad.

2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)

No. It is inconsistent with the inclusion/exclusion of publishers, some are missing accessdates. I also see instances of malformatted references: "E! Online", "CBSNews.com", "AllMusic.com", "ABC Good Morning America", "BMG" "New York Times" "Billboard magazine", "chicagotribune.com", and incorrect use/absence of italics on "E! Online", "Televisa", and Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Yes. Both images used are relevant, have suitable captions, and are appropriately licensed.

4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style

In addition to the amount of detail this goes into about her successes, I'm skeptical about including things like "Her father bought all of the original copies" or "Selena visited local schools to talk to students about the importance of education".

With the above being said, this would take considerable work to even meet GA criteria in its current condition. I doubt it can be salvaged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, I wouldn't mind working on this article with someone who is willing to work together. I also added a thread seeking editors several weeks ago. Best, .jona ^talk 19:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts and willingness are appreciated, but I'm not sure where to start on what to do. Probably best to delist and revamp as this is no higher than a C-class article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snuggums on this. There have been tags at the top of the article's page since October and very little has changed since then. Some have said that they are prepared to help others, but others have not come forward. Time to move on. EddieHugh (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the article talk page, I don't think we can get there from here. Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy, move to FARC. This is miles away right now with no clear path forward. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Concerns raised on prose, comprehensiveness, reliability, neutrality, structure and formatting. Article is currently full-protected, indicating stability issues. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as nominator. While prose has recently seen some improvements, it still isn't up to par, and the other issues still remain while stability has become a new problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, substantive problems and not much movement in the right direction. --Laser brain (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, the only major change since the article was listed at FAR has been an edit war resulting in article protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, the instability in the article was the nail in the practically-closed coffin. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 20:22, 6 January 2015 (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) 01:15, 12 January 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.