Wikipedia:Featured article review/Toledo War/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) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [1].

Toledo War

Hotstreets, Bkonrad, Kendall-K1, WP Michigan, WP Ohio, WP MilHist, talk page notification 2022-07-05

Review section

This 2006 FA has not been maintained to standard. As indicated by Hog Farm last April, there are sourcing issues. There is also MOS:SANDWICHing and iffy image layout. If someone engages to improve the article, other issues can be examined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, there is a critical failure at point 3 of FAC - media. It attempts to describe verbally the spatial relationships giving rise to the war. As a non US editor, I have no underpinning conceptions (prior knowledge) to assist me. There are four maps in total. File:Northwest territory.png is not annotated - ie there are no names of the states or lakes. There is nothing to show where the disputed territory is. The Mitchell map is the basis of the dispute. Text tries an fails in describing how the error of the Mitchell map resulted in the problem. First of all, I don't know where on the Mitchell map I should be looking. The map of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is fair enough but I still don't know where the strip is. The map of the Toledo strip is fair enough but I don't know where, in relation to the other maps it is. Essentially, a good image(s) is worth a thousand words. Images need to show places mentioned. They need to show how the problem was created by comparing the boundary per the Mitchell map v reality. A reader shouldn't have to jump all over WP to find just where things are. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC Sourcing concerns remain. I saw that JasonAQuest made some major edits to the lede. Are they interested in making further improvements on the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per my comments on talk about sourcing in April. Hog Farm _Talk 02:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, some improvement, but substantive sourcing issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, negligible engagement, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I still have concerns with the sourcing used vs not used. Hog Farm _Talk 13:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Issues remain, no significant edits to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 20 August 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) 02:37, 20 August 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.