Wikipedia:Featured article review/Climate of Minnesota/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) 1:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

Climate of Minnesota

Notified: WxGopher, WP Minnesota, WP Meteorology, 2020-11-23

Review section

This early 2007 promotion has uncited text sprinkled throughout, as well as some outdated statistics, such as a precipitation table that is only current through 2000. At least on my device, the layout is very problematic, with MOS:SANDWICHing occurring in several spots, and a massive gap of whitespace between the climate and temperature subheadings. Additionally, there seems to be a few recent events not mentioned, such as the Pagami Creek Fire, 2011 Red River flood, and the March 2012 North American heat wave, the latter of which had very severe effects in Minnesota. This just hasn't been kept current, and is no longer up to FA level. Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the climate change section in an excerpt, and therefore awkward prose within the article. The section mostly consists of a large quote. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - A couple edits made that addressed some of the layout issues, but the more serious issues of datedness and lacking citations have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 17:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC Only minor edits since the review has started. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs in the 'Seasons' section. Breach of MOS:ACCESSIBILITY in the precipitation table. DrKay (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - sourcing and comprehensiveness issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist how very sad that we are losing an entire suite of MN FAs as no one will work on keeping them up to date ... we once had almost everything about the state featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 10 March 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) 21:42, 13 March 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.