Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alcohol laws of New Jersey/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) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC).

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

 * Notified: no active editors, nominator blocked, WP Food and drink, WP Law, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord, but given on 2021-12-12

Review section
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on Alcohol laws of New Jersey 2021-12-12, there is dated text and sourcing problems. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC no need to check the almost certainly present source-text issues when there's the weaker sources and datedness issues mentioned in my notice. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC, expedited would work, too. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * removed significant advert text. Are you interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I certainly am, but I do know that some NJ laws have changed recently, so it'll take a bit of time to make sure everything is settled and understood. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and give the warning that this same primary author's sourcing has found to be not actually supporting all of the claims at articles like Lieutenant governor of New Jersey, Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey, A Song for Simeon, and to a lesser degree at Samuel Merrill Woodbridge, so the pre-existing sourcing here will need to be considered suspect. Hog Farm Talk 18:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree ... it is unlikely these six procedural FARs will be kept without a line-by-line source check, including off-line sources. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Status?  are you still intending to work on this article?  I see no edits since your last post ... ?? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies. I've been working on a GAN. Will start some clean up shortly. Lindsey40186 (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Should you intend to work towards preserving FA status here, every source will need checking (past history of the nominator's work).  Good luck ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Per Victoriaearle's commentary and homework on the background at Featured article review/Duino Elegies/archive1, this should be an expedited Move to FARC. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sandy, I don't think FAR is the place to fix this sort of disaster, the sourcing just can't be trusted at all. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Expedited delist, and article should be reverted to version before hoaxster touched it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Expedited delist and revert per Sandy Hog Farm Talk 01:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.