Wikipedia:Featured article review/Samuel Merrill Woodbridge/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) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Samuel Merrill Woodbridge

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP Bio, WP Christianity, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one's short and most of the sources are online, so I'll try to gradually give it checks and note the results on FAR talk. Hog Farm _Talk 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- have begun at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Samuel Merrill Woodbridge/archive1#Source checks, some issues noted so far. Hog Farm _Talk 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - have gone through and noted some source-text issues on talk, although they aren't as major or extensive as at some of the other ones (although I do think a few things are probably errors). What concerns me more is the sourcing used and noted used. Hageman's book appears to frequently mention Woodbridge, but is barely used, while the article is heavily reliant on a genealogical piece, a couple directory listings, and a pamphlet put together for a college ceremony he was involved with. I'm also not convinced it's WP:FACR-compliant to have a list of his speeches largely sourced to the transcripts of the speeches themselves. Because of the source-text issues and the weak sourcing, unless somebody wants to pick this one up, it needs to be delisted. I frankly have no interest in trying to resurrect this mess. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, it doesn't appear anyone will pick this one up, could be expedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per Hog Farm's sourcing issues. I don't think it needs to be expediated, but won't be opposed to it. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per similar issues in other FAs by same nominator, requiring extensive work to address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist verifiability problems and very weak sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 16:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2022 (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) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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