Wikipedia:Featured article review/4chan/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) 2:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC).

4chan

 * Notified: Trade, Giggy, IksDe, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Websites, 18 December 2021

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns identified by Retired Duke on the talk page 3 months ago, mainly sourcing and datedness. This is a widely viewed article so hopefelly someone is willing to restore it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to amend the article and address the concerns as best I can. DMT Biscuit (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! As suggested by RD a good start would be incorporating some of the academic research on 4chan. Here are some suggestions of works that might be cited:
 * Hi. I've emended the article thus far; I am writing to enquire on any specific areas you think work could be improved and/or vanquished. I've issued my own cautions and questions on the talk page, sadly to little fare. Personally, I think this article has a lot of flaws, beyond the nominally natural (chronology) and some foundational. Summarization - or lack thereof - is glaring and is my main area of focus, presently. If this were to be at FAC now, I would oppose. All the same, show must go own. DMT Biscuit (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * DMT Biscuit thanks so much for your work on the article so far. I'd agree with you that it needs substantial work in order to get it to meeting the FA criteria. The question is, is there someone willing to do it? Obviously you're not required to work on this article I agree that trivia is an issue, which could be reduced by relying more on scholarly sources or retrospectives rather than the news cycle. Another issue that I noticed was the citing of questionable sources such as Gawker, International Business Times, Forbes contributors, Metro, fimoculous (self-published website), Digiom Blog,  as well as a considerable amount of self-sourcing. Many of these sources would need to be removed/replaced to meet the high-quality RS requirement. Other than that, I'm not really sure which sections need work. The article can stay at FAR as long as someone is working on it, but if you're done with the improvements you plan to make it should go to FARC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to hash out some more summary changes and source review, for the greatest griveances. I am in agreement that it should go to FARC. There, hopefully, we can corrdinate some fresh eyes and set our sights on the heavy lifting. DMT Biscuit (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per above, we've definitely seen some major improvements but a lot more would be needed to bring this article to meet the FA criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in any capacity which should upend the FARC process, as for which I support the move. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC per DMT Biscuit. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I may take a stab at this one, depending on other editors' interest. That being said, I'll need significant time to familiarize myself with the topic. Thanks to Buidhe for providing some sources. Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There have been no significant edits since my last edit on 26 April 2022‎. Ovinus, are you still planning to work on the article? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging. No, probably not; I'd need to do a lot more research than I can reasonably commit to doing in the next month. Ovinus (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist, issues remain. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per above (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per cited issues. Ovinus (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist per above – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.