Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grand Coulee Dam/archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 01:58, 16 July 2022

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) 3:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Grand Coulee Dam

Notified: NortyNort, Wehwalt, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Cascadia, WikiProject Dams, diff for talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm brought up issues with updating and potential undue weight on Guthrie (I'd prefer an "in culture" prose section, if warranted by RS coverage). Another issue that I noticed is that while the article mentions displacement and compensation to Colville Indians, it doesn't say that these people were never even consulted before the dam was built. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the dam and its visitor center and they have part of the exhibit dedicated to Guthrie and his album on the Columbia. If there are other cultural references a broader section would be fine bit I don't really see an undue weight issue since he had an important role in publicizing the project. This page of Currents and Undercurrents: An Administrative History of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area has info about land purchase from the Colville, but I didn't find an affirmative statement about the lack of consultation. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no edits, no interest shown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, as needed improvements have not occurred. Even if the Guthrie concern is more debatable, there is certainly outdated material. Hog Farm _Talk 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist improvements needed to meet FA criteria (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - the "overhauls" section still needs an overhaul. Hog Farm _Talk 18:14, 26 June 2022 (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) 03:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

For many reasons, I hardly edit WP anymore. I do find it a bit absurd though that a handful of editors have a handful of issues with an article... do an FA review, seem to wait for the cavalry to arrive, then demote when they inevitably don't.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 {{FARClosed|delisted}} [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
-:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page.''</div><!--FAbottom-->
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
+* For many reasons, I hardly edit WP anymore. I do find it a bit absurd though that a handful of editors have a handful of issues with an article... do an FA review, seem to wait for the cavalry to arrive, then demote when they inevitably don't.--[[User:NortyNort|NortyNort]]  <small>[[User talk:NortyNort|(Holla)]]</small> 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)<!--FAbottom-->