Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Economy of the Iroquois/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 19: Line 19:
*'''Delist'''. Tagged for reliability, updating and needing page numbers. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 09:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delist'''. Tagged for reliability, updating and needing page numbers. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 09:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' - no progress. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font >]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font >]] 11:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' - no progress. --[[User:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">'''Laser brain'''</font >]] [[User_talk:Laser_brain|<font color="purple">(talk)</font >]] 11:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
{{FARClosed|delisted}}

Revision as of 13:12, 14 June 2015

Economy of the Iroquois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notified: Bkwillwm, WP New York, WP Economics, WP Business, WP Indigenous peoples of NA
URFA nom

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has outdated text and uncited text, as noted on talk since 2013, and again in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist: It wouldn't pass FAC today. That said, I think that the outdated section is not horribly egregious and perhaps the article could simply be downgraded to a GA, as it appears to meet that criteria with only a couple minor tweaks (maybe once a couple sentences are chopped.) However, I'm afraid I lack adequate motivation to work on this article, so it will have to sink or swim without my efforts to salvage it. Montanabw(talk) 18:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • <standard FAR note> Montanabw, at FAR, we don't declare Keep or Delist on articles under review; that happens if they are not improved, and move to the FARC phase (at which time, you would have to return to declare). FAR allows time for improvement before decisions are made. Also, GA is a separate process; if articles are delisted at FAR, they are marked as unassessed. FAR cannot assign GA status; articles delisted at FAR have to undergo a separate GA, but I have never seen a case where a delisted FA also meets GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's fair enough. I haven't been involved much with FAR. I hope someone else at WP:IPMA has time to work on it because it is an interesting article. But that said, I suspect that even if it got cleaned up, it isn't quite up to FA quality anyway, looking at sources, comprehensiveness and structure. It probably could go GA without too much work, though. Montanabw(talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include datedness and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]