Wikipedia:Featured article review/Attachment theory/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) 2:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC) [1].
Attachment theory[edit]
- Notified: User:Fainites, User:TazSanches, User:Outriggr, User:Jean Mercer, User:ANMonte, User:Rjwilmsi, User:Kind Tennis Fan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics
Review section[edit]
SandyGeorgia wrote on the talk page in January:
- This article passed WP:FAC ten years ago, and is no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA. The lead, in particular, does not comply with WP:LEAD (see the version that passed FAC). The article is over-quoted, and the TOC is no longer focused. There is a good deal of uncited text. A consistent citation style is not used.
I skimmed the article but didn't read in depth. Since January, it looks like the lede has been reverted to the FAC version, and conscientious editors have improved some citations. There are still some uncited paragraphs, which I've tagged, and one "citation needed" tag from February. Citation style is still inconsistent; sometimes the source is named in parentheses, and sometimes it's named in a footnote. There are also NPOV concerns being raised by a tag in the Criticism section. The TOC does not look bad to me, though perhaps there are specific ideas for improvement? I agree there are too many quotations, including the full first paragraph of the "Attachment patterns" section, occasionally in "Disorganized/disoriented attachment", "Later patterns and the dynamic-maturational model", and "Child care policies". -- Beland (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, darn it, Fainites has not edited since 2013, so it would seem to be rude to email them. And I don't know anyone else who can take this on. Sad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Two weeks have elapsed, there has been no further engagement; Boghog is there any chance that you would be able to bring this over the line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is way out of my area of expertise. Fixing citation format is easy. I will see if I can tract down appropriate secondary sources for the unsourced paragraphs adjusting the text as neccessary. I will also try to convert the long quotations to paraphrased equivalents. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Two weeks have elapsed, there has been no further engagement; Boghog is there any chance that you would be able to bring this over the line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section[edit]
- Issues raised in the review section include organization and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, vague or ambiguous time, and expansion. DrKay (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, MoS issues (weird bolding all over the place), cite issues, huge See also section, long and awkwardly phrased sentences, etc. Eisfbnore (会話) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, sadly, sorry to see this one go, but no longer at standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 9 May 2020 (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) 12:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.