Wikipedia:Featured article review/Truthiness/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) 1:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Truthiness[edit]

Notified: User:ISD, User:Kizzle, User:Reaverdrop, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject Logic, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Telivision, talk page notification 2022-01-24

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, the truth is that this 2007 promoted article, in its current state, fails FA criteria: 1a, 1c, 1f (excessive blockquotes), 2b, and 2c. Sources like 'BookLocker.com', 'Firedoglake', 'YouTube'!, 'Salon', 'Today.com', etc. are not WP:RS, far from what we require for FAs: "highest quality reliable sources". The prose is not upto FA standard, combined with the fact that various citation inconsistencies and page structure issues exist. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the entire Use in political and social commentary is an absolute mess - it's just listing a bunch of unrelated, often minor, uses, with many parts just sourced to the usages themselves. (such as the Huffington/Colbert controversy to HuffPost and Colbert, the political and legal stuff to proceedings records/court briefs, etc). That whole section pretty much needs WP:TNT. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that section but the article still needs a lot of work, move to FARC (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per HF and Buidhe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, sourcing still needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 18:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per nom. ––FormalDude talk 06:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist nowhere near FA quality (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Tagged for primary sources inline. See also section needs pruning. DrKay (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist much needed improvement not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - sourcing upgrade needed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The only engagement since it's nom at FAR has been from buidhe in February, and they have indicated above that it should be delisted, and I trust their judgement. Non-primary source needed tags need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 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) 01:54, 26 March 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.