Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yes Minister/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 User:Nikkimaria 12:44, 28 December 2014 [1].

Notified: The JPS, Ixia, Chris 42, Bob Castle, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

This article has sourcing issues; one of sections is tagged as "original research". I tried talk page and notified people before FAR, but issues are yet to be resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - not a huge amount of work required but definitely needs some to maintain Featured status:

the Situation section really needs some sources. It is unusual in that it combines synopsis with interpretation in the one section.

There is nothing about casting or series development.

The see also section should be incorporated into text.

anyway, good luck to whoever decides to work on it. Will take another look once done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and sentences, which do not appear to be self-evident. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. It's had an original research tag for 2 years! Some unsourced parts look like opinion. e.g., "This is particularly evident in the episode "The Ministerial Broadcast", in which Hacker is advised on the effects of his clothes and surroundings"; "Despite this, the overall thrust was towards government reduction rather than expansion." EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. No one working on the issues identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist an excellent series but inadequately referenced, far below modern FA standards. Bencherlite^Talk 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per the others. Poorly sourced and written.—indopug (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2014 (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) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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