Wikipedia:Featured article review/Borobudur/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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [1].

Borobudur

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2023-11-01

Review section

The FAC nominator for this 2007 promotion has been gone since 2008, and the article has not been maintained to FA standards. Concern listed on 2023-11-01 include uncited text; inconsistent citation style; Wikipedia articles listed as sources; further reading and external links need pruning or to be worked in to the article; and incomplete citations. Much of the content is cited to dated sources and the article may be outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems in decent shape to me. Where are "Wikipedia articles listed as citations"? The dates of the cited sources seems broadly ok to me; there isn't a vast amount published in English, given the importance of the monument. We don't have many editors in this area, so I wouldn't hold your breath for "a top-to-bottom rewrite". Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia source was removed after my talk notice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is available to start working through the uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, inconsistent citation style, inflation adjustments needed on dollar amounts and other such, then the prose issues can be tackled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet Archive has two of the (six) source books, so I can start. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a progress report and preliminary assessment. It might be arrogant for me to attempt this topic without knowledge of it, but we seem to be making progress.

(Not done yet!)

failing verification. Maybe written by editor with subject knowledge.

for example, Raffles, who wrote an 1817 English text, is cited for saying something he did not write.

missing page numbers. Citations to whole books.
removed Gallery (wasn't there at FA promotion). Borobudur is a tourist attraction and people will stop by just to add their pics.
inflation is done (didn't repeat "equivalent to" over and over in one section. Cyprus is unsupported.)
MOS:SANDWICHs fixed.

Question. Is there any problem with me changing the citation style? This article used a list of refs (sometimes dereferenced with random strings like "4IUze"). I am slowly converting to sfns. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the change to sfns is an improvement. JimRenge (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JimRenge. Today I am double checking sources I rejected. Found one alternate spelling so far. Most of the books are in the Internet Archive but money can't buy a copy of Imagine Buddha in Prambanan by Roy E. Jordaan. That one can be taken on faith based on a Google snippet and a HathiTrust page number. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I have to pull away for maybe a couple months for (my) priority FARs. We've made headway, and moved perhaps half of the list refs to sfns, and to a new section for Works cited. Any obvious mistakes in those refs are fixed. JimRenge is doing good work here; I agree with his edit summaries. Can he or someone else step in for a while?

Not ideal timing for me to move away. The HarvRef errors script reveals many unresolved mistakes. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js -SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch, I can continue the work on refs for a while. I intend to move refs to sfn, supplement page numbers, check text-source integrity and try to source uncited text. JimRenge (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, JimRenge. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this will make it but am an election worker until March 7. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any update now that we've passed that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, Nikkimaria. I cleaned up recent changes but made no headway. We lost JimRenge for now.

Unless Gunkarta can do it, I am afraid this article must to move to FARC. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per SusanLesch above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - some of the sourcing issues are still outstanding. Hog Farm _Talk 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Some sourcing work happened on April 1, but sections are still uncited and the yellow banner is still present. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JimRenge came back editing April 16. If he is willing to take on this project solo for the most part, then we should wait as long as he needs. (Regrets, JimRenge, I am two FAs behind.) -SusanLesch (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No significant edits since April and several uncited passages remain. Retaining my delist declaration. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2024 (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) 15:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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