Wikipedia:Featured article review/Abbey Theatre/archive2


 * 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 removed by User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013.

Abbey Theatre

 * ''Notified: User:Ceoil; WikiProject Ireland

Review commentary
I am nominating this featured article for review because my request on the article talk page for improvements has met with silence. The article seems to me to fall short on criteria 1b and 1c, and most seriously 2c: something like a third, possibly nearer a half, of the statements are uncited. I think they're very probably true, but for a featured article such a wholesale lack of citations won't do. I have done a small bit to improve the article, but I haven't the expertise on the topic to do much more, and given the lack of response on the talk page I regretfully raise it here. Tim riley (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)  Transclusion to WP:FAR on 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article has not had a major edit since February 2008, at the time of the previous FAR. I have made a couple of cosmetic changes since this request was opened, but I doubt if there is anybody with the expertise, the enthususiasm and the time to undertake a major edit right now. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: Abject apologies! I omitted to add this page to the list on the FAR page. As the review has, not surprisingly, stalled, I have asked several regular WP editors to look in, if they are interested in doing so, to add comments pro or con delisting. Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist.  The article is missing many references, and the research and writing in the "recent" section is poor.  This article no longer comes close to the FA criteria.  I do not believe that it is that close to meeting the GA criteria.  It appears that the editors who brought this article to FA are no longer maintaining it.  With regret, I feel that it must be delisted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist - article fails to meet the standard for FA. Jack1956 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist regrettable, but there are too many holes in the citations. Needs a rework.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, sadly. Too many holes all over - the "recent" section is enough to delist on its own, as it currently stands. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delist, reluctantly. Nobody likes to see this, but there are far too many holes in the article which needs a lot of work for it it to even be considered good enough for the nominations process, let alone a fully fledged FA or GA.   Cassianto Talk   12:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi all - please realize that this is the FAR section, where discussion happens and (hopefully) improvements are made. Voting happens when the article moves to the FARC section, generally about two weeks from when the article is transcluded here. This is done to give interested editors a chance to improve the article after seeing it listed at FAR. It doesn't always happen, but we'd prefer to give it a chance :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Further apologies! I seem to have made a right old lash-up of this process. By all means let us wait two weeks in the hope of improvements, though as I raised the matter back in the summer I don't hold out much hope. If there are no improvements, shall we all have to vote again or can the above be carried over when the voting stage is properly opened? Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, given the long period of time during which the article was tagged for FAR, there's a good chance that no-one is interested in improving the article right now. However, sometimes people see the article listed here on the board and decide to improve it, and we like to give them every chance to do so! If there have been no changes to the article after two weeks, when the article is moved to FARC, I don't think any re-votes will be needed. However, if there are any substantive changes in content during that time the voting editors will need to come back and state whether their opinions have changed. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Concerns raised in the review section dealt with referencing, comprehensiveness, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As above, really. So sorry to have messed up the review process, but I think the comments above remain applicable as the article has not been improved in the past weeks and there is no reason to hope that it will be in the near future. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.