Wikipedia:Featured article review/Acid2/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC) [1].

Acid2[edit]

Notified: Remember the dot, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Computing, 2020-11-09

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains uncited sections, source formatting issues, too many primary sources, and hasn't been updated with retrospective commentary, as noted by RetiredDuke in November. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What article? Nearly the whole damn thing is a bunch of bullet lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA: Here's a more detailed look.
  1. In just a passing glance, I was able to find at least four maintenance tags to slap on the thing. Three are entire sections that consist entirely of lists, and one is an extremely large image gallery of dubious relevance.
  2. There is also a lot of "this is a list", "see the list below", "the following is a list" which does not follow MOS:LEADFORALIST.
  3. Source 1, "Margin Collapse Issue", is an incomplete citation to another wiki.
  4. There are an ungodly amount of primary sources or press releases. 2, 4-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 40, 42-46, and more.
  5. Most of the sources used in the article are just individual browsers' websites reporting data about said browser which has nothing to do with Acid2 (things like the release date of said browser). This seems to make parts of the article veer into WP:OFFTOPIC territory.
  6. Many sources, like "TheCounter.com" (#30) and "Market Share" (#41), seem horrendously out of date. In fact, the latter has been domain-squatted by a restaurant.

This is seriously the worst condition I've seen an FA in since the FAR for ROT13. It is so utterly unsalvageable that someone who knows the subject better than I may need to use some WP:TNT. Pinging @Nikkimaria: @Casliber:, @DrKay: - using the ROT13 FAR as precedent, can we invoke WP:IAR here and speedy-delist this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's go for an accelerated FAR, assuming the nominator does not engage - I see they last edited a couple of weeks ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support accelerated Move to FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated FARC. Big mess. That table of compliant applications is a complete wreck, another section is just a gallery, outdated, references look out of date. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my concerns above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist - This is a complete and thorough mess. Most of the articles is lists and tables, some of which goes into WP:UNDUE territory, it's not updated, and a bunch of the sources fail high-quality RS by a mile. We're seriously using "Tim's Blog" and a Mozilla bug tracking ticket as sources in a FA? Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the overview of what Acid2 tests less list-like. The great Jay (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to convert all the list-like sections. The great Jay (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with excessive lists have largely been addressed. But this still needs essentially a whole rewrite. The timeline of passing applications may need scrapped. Almost the entire compliant applications section is a single, excessively long sentence. Non-compliant applications only discusses a single application. Multiple dubious sources. A lack of retrospective commentary. Still a long way off. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Im working on finding secondary sources about Acid2. The great Jay (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia Jay. Saving a FA article that is this far gone is extremely difficult, especially if you still have to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia seeks in our best work. For instance, you've removed the lists, but have not put in appropriate prose with a good paragraph structure (smaller paragraphs) and punctuation. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried, but sadly, I couldn't find any secondary sources. The great Jay (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist substantially below standards. Deltawk (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist No substantial progress, new mistakes introduced with punctuation. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2021 (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. (given the number of current removal candidates we have, and impressions of the above I have delisted (relatively) speedily so efforts can be focussed elsewhere) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Acid2/archive1&oldid=1009515185"