Wikipedia:Featured article review/Flag of Australia/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC) [1].
Flag of Australia
- Notified: WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Australian noticeboard, original nominator and most active editors long gone
- URFA nom
Review section
This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, some edits, but little improvements in issues of uncited text and MOS breaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
- Concerns raised in the review section centre on MOS, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work, but am surprised that no one from the Australia project can be enticed to clean up the article. There are problems with hyphens, citations needed, the citations need to be cleaned up for consistency, lists need consistent format and punctuation, image layout needs to be improved so flags don't scroll off the screen, external jumps in text corrected, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unsourced statements include "despite the counter argument that this isn't uncommon", "have been used only", and "Although common RGB approximations of Pantone colours may make the flag appear more natural on screen, the officially specified RGB colours should be used." Listy prose; single sentence paragraphs; off-topic digressions, such as Toowoomba, Queensland. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relunctant delist, this should not be hard to fix up, but no one seems to care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly needs some work. How much time do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 If someone will work on it, the coords always wait. (I will be traveling in case you fix it up and I'm not here to strike my !vote.) Just be sure to keep this page posted, so the Coords now you're on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly needs some work. How much time do we have? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist- The prose is very choppy and lacking in flow thanks to numerous 1- and 2- sentence paragraphs; there are grammar problems, MOS issues, and out of date statements (2004) and conversions (2009). Most concerning is that the citations need major work. Even the most heavily used sources are insufficiently identified. Australian Flags is cited 30 times but never given an author, publisher, or year. Likewise there are 15 cites to 'Kwan' before a Kwan work is ever identified—and then a few cites later a Kwan work of a different year is (inadequately) cited, so the nearly 30 cites to Kwan are all unclear: is it two different works entirely, or a book and a revised edition? And how are we to determine which work is cited from cites that simply say "Kwan p.xxx"? This needs a ton of work to meet the FAC criteria. Maralia (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2015 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.