Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2018

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) 1:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) [1].

Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Notified: Buckshot06, WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1b, 1c, and 2c. Specifically:

• There is a deficiency in referencing in sections of this article. The first paragraph is entirely lacking in citations (with the exception of one I added), and many others lack a citation at their end. The seventh paragraph has only one citation, linked to a suspicious website forum's publication of the writings of Patrice Lumumba, quoting him in a letter to the UN Secretary General, probably a violation of WP:OR.
• This article unnecessarily mentions some of the sources its using in the main text. This is unnecessary unless information from multiple sources is being compared, or there is reason to call into question the authority of a source.
• It incorporates external links and plugs to books on relevant subjects in the main text, like telling the reader to "see René Lemarchand, The dynamics of violence in Central Africa, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009, pages 226-228" "for a concise general description of the FAZ in the 1990s", in lieu of actually giving them a concise description.
• The citation style is inconsistent and messy.
• It would appear that some information in the article (commanding officers, current organization, etc.) needs to be updated.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the seventh-paragraph citation Indy beetle seemingly is offended by, citing the August 14 letters and the surrounding situation from Lumumba to Hammarskjold via Ramsbothan and Woodhouse and a Yale article by Hobbs. As I have indicated on the talkpage a couple of months ago, there is no source that could provide a up-to-date and complete listing of commanding officers and current organisation. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to partially update the organisation using some combination of The Military Balance and Jane's World Armies? I think that I can access the first but not the second. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could do that, but the result would probably be very uncertain and of doubtful reliability. But if you could also dig up the latest Jane's entry we could see.. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I no longer have access to any of the Jane's works (they've all gone electronic in the institutions where I used to consult hard copies, and I don't have the requisite level of access). Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely focus on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, as there is still quite a lot of text lacking citations to reliable sources. The work done to bring it up to standard is not sufficient. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Fails on 1a (prose: see, for example the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo#Known integrated brigades in 2007 section) and 2c (inconsistent citations: bare urls, incomplete details, different formats). DrKay (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Indy beetle, Buckshot06, and Nick-D: Thoughts on current status? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per rampant referencing problems, including unreferenced areas and inconsistent citations. Also phrases like "Attempting to list the equipment available to the DRC's land forces is difficult; most figures are unreliable estimates based on known items delivered in the past. The IISS's Military Balance 2007 and Orbat.com's Concise World Armies 2005 give only slightly differing figures however" suggest WP:OR. Other info is outdated, some of it being over 10 years old. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2018 (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) 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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