Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Svolder/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) 5:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Svolder

Notified: Haukurth, WP MILHIST, WP Norse history & culture, WP Norway, WP Sweden, WP Denmark, 2020-12-1

Review section

Lots of uncited text and the use of primary source ancient texts seems a bit too heavy, IMO given that there seem to be decent recent sources available (although I don't read the relevant Scandinavian languages). Hog Farm _Bacon 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I was writing this I found it surprisingly difficult to find recent secondary sources discussing this battle in any detail. I think the type of historical analysis that would do something like that is probably out of fashion. That said, I'm sure you're right that the article isn't in accordance with modern Wikipedia standards. I thought it had been delisted years ago. Haukur (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should stay featured. As Haukur says, this kind of matter is not fashionable, and you are unlikely to find a lot of new literature on the subject. It is probably close to as good as it can ever be.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Berig and Haukurth: - I don't know if this will be useful to the article or not, but this discusses one of the sagas about Svolder. It's available freely through WP:LIBRARY. After some looking for sources, I have to agree that this isn't the most written about topic. However, there's a number of spots where there aren't inline citations, and inline citations are part of the current FA requirements. If anyone can read Swedish, the Larrson source at [2] may be useful. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chunks of uncited text are still not resolved. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, entire paragraphs still uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, missing citations everywhere. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, as per what others have mentioned. Looks like nothing has been changed since the notice except for some minor cleanup. Deltawk (talk) 05:37, 25 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) 15:57, 30 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.