Wikipedia:Featured article review/Campaign history of the Roman military/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) 4:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC) [1].

Campaign history of the Roman military

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Military history.

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted FA in 2007, but now it looks quite under FA standards. I am mostly troubled by the bibliography:

Many of the sources used here are very questionable to me. Should a book written by Boris Johnson (!!!), or even Churchill, be included in a featured article, on a subject that is outside their sphere of competence? Moreover, Bury (1889), Harkness (1887), Gibbon (1776!), and Pennell (1894) are really dated; Victor Davis Hanson and Liddell Hart have dubious reputation; Holland, Welch, and Wood are more popular writers than academics. I suppose the criteria for featured articles were different in 2007, but I think this article should be delisted as it relies too much on sources that should not be used in a featured article. This was already pointed out during the review, but ultimately ignored. Moreover, few people curate the article, and there have been a number of unsourced additions.

The title is a bit weird as well. I would prefer something like "Wars of Ancient Rome", but that's a detail. T8612 (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist In my view this article lost its FA status. There're dozens and dozens of gaps of paragarphs or sentences without any citations which means this article doesn't support b1 of the B-class reviews. This article even doesn't use sources which a normal FA article ought have. Unless someone wanna restore this article I reckon this ought be a delist. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The article needs a complete overhaul which would change it so substantially in my opinion that it would need to be resubmitted altogether. SpartaN (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Which is a shame, but CPA-5 and SpartaN are accurate in their comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm moving this to the FARC section now, but in future keep in mind that declarations aren't generally made until that happens. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely focused on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per review section. I did some minor copyediting but I think this would require an overhaul to meet the FACr. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:33, 19 May 2019 (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. Casliber (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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