Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Philadelphia Inquirer/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) 4:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC) [1].
The Philadelphia Inquirer edit
- Notified: Medvedenko, WP Brands, WP Journalism, WP Newspapers, WP Pennyslvania,WP Philadelphia, talk page notification 2020-11-25
Review section edit
This is a 2006 FA whose main editor has been gone from Wikipedia for eight years; it has not been maintained to standards. A summary of issues including datedness, sourcing, comprehensiveness and MOS was posted on talk over a month ago, with no response. If anyone engages to improve the article, I can expand the list of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for an article promoted in 2006, this isn't in bad shape, but that's a low bar. I fixed the citation needed tags and replaced the dead search link for the Pulitzers section with one that works. There's still a bunch of work to be done, and I don't personally think I'll have the capacity, but I really hope someone comes in and saves this. Newspapers of record for major cities are important topics and we should prioritize keeping them up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, with the exception of Sdkb's edits, and some bare URLs filled in, no other edits, and issues mostly unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sdkb do you have any further thoughts? In spite of your improvements, I remain concerned that overall the article needs updating and is no longer comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No further thoughts at the moment. I continue to feel that this is an important FA worth saving, rather than just delisting after a perfunctory wait. Is there anywhere we could post likely to actually draw in editors to work on it? I can help out if there's a group effort, but I don't have the capacity to go through this entire page by myself. As I said above, it's really not in that bad shape compared to most other FAs from 2006, but any page promoted from that era is going to need some work to get it to 2021 FA standards. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from notifications above, we typically cast a wide net with FAR notifications, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Medvedenko hasn't edited since 2012, and none of those WikiProjects are more than marginally active. Is there any task force that seeks to save high-priority FAs undergoing FARCs? If not, we might as well just automatically delist every FA that hasn't been reviewed since 2010. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We find that about 20% of those listed here are restored to status, and feel like that's worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take that as a no, and strongly suggest that such a task force be created. I highly doubt that the 20% of pages that survive tend to represent the most visible or vital FAs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Earth is pretty vital, and a recent save at FAR. Ditto for climate change. ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't seen the Earth FAR—that does give me a little bit of hope that FA people are capable of working on something other than hurricanes, soldiers, and rare coins. I'd characterize it as an exception to the rule, though. And climate change was most certainly an exception—it probably should've been structured as a peer review, since it was nominated as a checkup rather than since the nominator observed any problems. The point remains that the vast majority of FAs have almost no effort put into maintaining them to standards, and that FARC fails to offer a way to gather editors to save articles like this one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Earth is pretty vital, and a recent save at FAR. Ditto for climate change. ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take that as a no, and strongly suggest that such a task force be created. I highly doubt that the 20% of pages that survive tend to represent the most visible or vital FAs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We find that about 20% of those listed here are restored to status, and feel like that's worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Medvedenko hasn't edited since 2012, and none of those WikiProjects are more than marginally active. Is there any task force that seeks to save high-priority FAs undergoing FARCs? If not, we might as well just automatically delist every FA that hasn't been reviewed since 2010. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from notifications above, we typically cast a wide net with FAR notifications, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No further thoughts at the moment. I continue to feel that this is an important FA worth saving, rather than just delisting after a perfunctory wait. Is there anywhere we could post likely to actually draw in editors to work on it? I can help out if there's a group effort, but I don't have the capacity to go through this entire page by myself. As I said above, it's really not in that bad shape compared to most other FAs from 2006, but any page promoted from that era is going to need some work to get it to 2021 FA standards. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues of comprehensiveness and datedness outstanding. The article was improved at FAR, but not enough to bring it to FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Considering only the lead: in the first paragraph, "largest newspaper" and "newspaper of record" are both sourced to the newspaper's owners or its employees: primary source inline for exceptional claims with potential conflict of interest. The second paragraph includes claims apparently unsupported by sources: "lacking experienced staff" and "most prominent" [neither of which is sourced in the article body] and a claim apparently unsupported in the article body by secondary sources: "trailed its chief competitor". The third paragraph is too short, disconnected and has uncertain relevance and notability. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2021 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.