Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wikipedia/archive3

Wikipedia

 * Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again! This should be the sixth time this article is up for candidacy to become an FA. I've gone through the entire article and brought everything up to date (that I could find data for). I hope this article is restored to its previous glory! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on 1c and 4. Currently cites plenty of dubious sources such as International Business Times, Wikipedia articles, The Signpost, Larry Sanger op-eds, etc. The article's length is over 12,000 words of readable prose and could benefit from a 30-50% reduction. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per Buide, among other things. The sourcing is one of the main concerns for me - using dubious sources and under-using academic sources is a no-no for me. But there are issues in the text too. There is a single paragraph that reads “The number of active English Wikipedia editors has since remained steady after a long period of decline.” There’s no context in the paragraph and “since” has no start or end points - “As at/of” is needed for context, particularly for a three-year-old source. That’s one example, but there are more. There’s also a CN tag in there. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose nominator has had relatively little input into the article as it stands—indeed, some of their improvements have already been reverted—and does not seem to discussed it with longer-term contributors.  SN54129  13:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Coord note -- thanks everyone, this is an article that really needs to go to another Peer Review before any future FAC nomination... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)