Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
I'll give it a week. |
close as delisted |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::::::::{{ping|Bfpage}} I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week.01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::::::::{{ping|Bfpage}} I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week.01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
:The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. [[User:DrKiernan|DrKiernan]] ([[User talk:DrKiernan|talk]]) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
{{FARClosed|delisted}} |
|||
Revision as of 12:22, 28 October 2015
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting
- WP:URFA nom
Review section
Per talk page notification: uncited text, and prose/style issues, including repetitive headings, short sections and too short lead. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
FARC section
- Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delist. Per opening statement. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delist - Per DrKiernan's comments. GamerPro64 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like to take the opportunity to edit this article to meet the FA requirements.
- Bfpage |leave a message 15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Bfpage: I am happy to hear that, we have plenty of leeway to leave these as open for considerable time to get them cleaned up...so go for thy life....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Bfpage: please let us know when you feel satisfied this page meets criteria or at least when we should all look at it again. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- The article was proposed to be deleted in July. My first response was less than a month ago. I have done some confirmation of the references and done some refining of the prose. I have contacted other editors who have contributed to the article in the past and notified them that the article is under review. It is fairly long and will take more time. The reasons cited for delisting the article are mentioned above and are based upon the comments of Nikkimaria. My concern is that POV issues may arise and that those who 'don't like' the topic may begin to add to the list of issues. The Boy Scouts in general are are controversial group of topics, though the editing history on this article appears to be stable. I would like to leave a message on the talk page of the Project Scouting letting interested project members know that the article is undergoing review. Is that appropriate?
- Bfpage |leave a message 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I left a message at the WikiProject in July, but it does no harm to leave another. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.
- Bfpage |leave a message 09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Bfpage: I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week.01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bfpage |leave a message 09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.
- The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.