Wikipedia:Featured article review/Astrophysics Data System/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) 2:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Astrophysics Data System

Notified: Kevin B12, Worldtraveller, WP Astronomy, WP Bibliographies, WP Physics, WP Systems, WP Databases, WP Libraries, WP Academic Journals, November 26

Review section

Significant uncited text. Also problematic is the fact that the newest source seems to be from 2008, so the article hasn't been kept up-to-date. Only three significant editors are a user who retired in 2008, another who retired in 2010, and a blocked LTA, so they have not been notified. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, please notify even if retired - there may still be page watchers interested in helping out. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria Done for the two retired, but not for the LTA. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

The references by Kurtz et al (1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 14) are not independent; neither are 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 (predominantly how-to-use webpages about the database). 12 doesn't appear to be about the article topic. Reference 3 gives me the impression he also was not an independent writer given he was working for the "Astrophysics Data System" group at CalTech, meaning we have 0 independent sources for notability purposes. --Izno (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced the topic is fundamentally notable - I've read many third-party articles on ADS, especially how to use it for bibliometrics, though it's challenging to search for them. An easy demonstration is the list of awards, which have links to original sources [2]. However the article is woefully out of date, especially as ADS underwent a major recoding and redesign in 2019, and the lack of citations to independent sources is an immediate FAC fail. Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC Fundamental issues with sourcing and currency are unaddressed. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist does not meet the requirement to be updated and sourced to high quality sources (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Major currency issues, and as noted above, the sources are almost all non-independent. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As others have mentioned, article doesn't seem to be updated with past decade, and article has insufficient independent sources. Deltawk (talk) 20:55, 12 January 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 16 January 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.