Wikipedia:Featured article review/Henry Moore/archive2
- 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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Solipsist, (FAC nominator) Caeciliusinhorto, (significant contributor), Ceoil, (significant contributor, FAR commentator), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject England, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Yorkshire, WikiProject London, 2023-04-16
Review section
editI am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about the quality of the sources. Many references are to museum websites and news articles, while numerous books from high-quality publishers are listed in Further reading, unused as references in the article. Furthermore, a search on various databases produced several academic journals which could also replace the lower-quality sources currently used as references. No one responded to my talk page notice, so here we are. I am hoping that this can be ready for a TFA run on Moore's 150th birthday (July 30). Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there are issues with comprehensiveness and sourcing: in particular I would expect reference to Christa Lichtenstern's Henry Moore: Work, Theory, Impact (available on archive.org), and discussion of Moore's drawings outside of the Shelter drawings (possibly with reference to the 2019 Henry Moore Drawings: The Art of Seeing exhibition catalogue). There are also half a dozen {{citation needed}} tags that need resolving, and the citations are not consistently formatted.
- I'd be happy to help work on this if others are keen, but I haven't done much serious wikipedia content work so far this year and I don't really have the enthusiasm to make a big project of this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel similar to Caeciliusinhorto; I like Moore somewhat, but it wouldn't be enough to go full blown on saving. BTY, also agree that this FAR is needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC with the hopes that work does begin on this one later, but work has not begun and there's a general consensus of comprehensiveness/sourcing issues here. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, per Hog Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - some MOS editing happening, but the larger, more serious issues have not been touched. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist the sourcing and comprehensive concerns have not been addressed yet, and I think it will take a lot to bring this back to FA status. Z1720 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, alas. Needs serious, fundamental (coverage, sources) work. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2023 (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) 03:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.