Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hamersley, Western Australia/archive2

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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Hamersley, Western Australia

Notified: Orderinchaos, WP Australia, talk page notice 2022-02-21

Review section

This 2007 promotion has not been maintained to FA standards, and has essentially no recent active editors. The issues listed on talk include datedness, sourcing, and citations; if someone engages, more can be listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...and many of its minor streets are joined by parks and pathways." The source for this is a permanently dead link. I've removed this part of the sentence as I don't think it is particularly relevant, but if someone disagrees, I might be able to find the source by digging a bit deeper. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the Cooper and McDonald refs to sfn format. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swan River Colony ceased being an official name before 1837, so I've changed that to the colony of Western Australia Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of what is written in the politics section has to go. It is mostly original research. The tables have to be updated as well, but that should be easy. This section also has most of the article's dead links. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The transport section needs to be completely overhauled. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Demographics should be easy to update to the 2021 census. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is pretty good prose and isn't out of date (nothing major has happened to Hamersley recently). The main problem here is that there are several sentences without a source. Steelkamp (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: Are you interested in making additional edits so this can meet the FA criteria? Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. I will be steadily working on it for a few weeks. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Steelkamp, no new edits, what is the status here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it now. Steelkamp (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, insufficient progress, very few edits, and issues are considerable. There remains a large amount of uncited text, and many of the citations do not verify the text they are attached to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - failed verification issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No major edits since Dec. 9 (by Sandy), concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, progress, but issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - stalled out for three weeks and substantial improvements still needed. Hog Farm _Talk 21:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I've lost motivation for this article and I doubt anyone else will be able to save this. Steelkamp (talk) 04:11, 30 December 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) 16:33, 30 December 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.