Wikipedia:Featured article review/World Science Festival/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 kept by Dana boomer 13:31, 13 October 2010 [1].
Review commentary
editWorld Science Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Markus Poessel, Dank, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Science
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer current (i.e., it is not comprehensive). Coverage of the 2009 event is minimal, of this year's event non-existing. (And what's up with reference 22? A bunch of references inside of one?) Nageh (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did you notify the WikiProjects? JJ98 (Talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was notified since I worked on it a little. Would it work to change the title to "2008 World Science Festival" and remove the short section on 2009? - Dank (push to talk) 22:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for FA criteria concerns. Nobody addressing those issues above. JJ98 (Talk) 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've just changed the title to World Science Festival, 2008, and removed the section on the 2009 festival. WP:TITLE didn't allow that title when Markus took it to FAC in 2008 because there was only one festival at that time. The article seemed comprehensive at the time to the reviewers, and still does, to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No criterion three issues. No comment on other issues, if any. Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The focus of the article has shifted to the 2008 Festival, so the comprehensiveness issue no longer applies. There are two or three dead links that ought to be attended to, but overall I don't see any reason why this should be delisted. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Malleus Fatuorum. It doesn't need be delisted. JJ98 (Talk) 15:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Renaming is a dirty hack, but I am fine with it. :) As the FAR nominator, Nageh (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.