Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omaha Beach/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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Omaha Beach[edit]

Notified: Factotem, Eaglizard, Binksternet, Hugo999, Cgersten, WP France, WP MILHIST, WP Normandy, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section[edit]

This is a very important FA, but isn't at the current sourcing standards. There is a massive amount of scholarly literature on D-Day/Operation Overlord (too much to list here, but go ask the nearest WWII buff for more details), but this article relies almost exclusively on a single 1945 US Army report. I have significant concerns with WP:FACR #1c, as while I'm sure that one 1945 report is fine, it's not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I can help a little here, but my personal library is more 19th-century focused, and the couple of relevant works I have aren't going to be enough to push this one over the line. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting no further than the lead, some of it seems plain wrong; "By the end of the day, two small isolated footholds had been won". Let's not get started on notable stuff that's missing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, this is going to need someone with an extensive library on WWII. Hawkeye is the only active FA write I know who might have the source material but I know he's got a lot on his plate. In fairness, this is a 2007 promotion and 1c was much weaker back then and given the continuing interest in WWII (which only abated slightly for the centenary of WWI) there will have been plenty published on the topic in the last 15 years. But this needs to be based on modern books, not an 80-year-old official report. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - agreement that the sourcing needs overhauled. Minimal changes, with one that needs checked, as it seems to relate to the Poland & the Holocaust controversy. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC I see lots of uncited sections, and I trust Gog and HF when they say that the sources and infomation is not great. I do not see enough progress yet to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - foundational sourcing issues in most sections. It would have met the breadth of sourcing requirements when promoted, but isn't close anymore. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist would need improvements to sourcing to be kept. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sourcing and comprehensiveness issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 22 March 2023 (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/Omaha_Beach/archive1&oldid=1146522577"