Wikipedia:Featured article review/Frédéric Chopin/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 procedurally kept by Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC).

Frédéric Chopin

 * Notified: Classical music, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because a long standing RfC discussion, which has now been long awaiting closure, has resulted in edits which mean that it loses (imo) many of the characteristics of an FA (to which status I was amongst those active in bringing it). I would ask that the FA status be removed for the present, and then the article can then be resubmitted for FA when the discussion is resolved (whatever the outcome). The article gets >1m. views per year, and should not I think be presented as an FA in these circumstances, as it is not representative of the WP standards for such articles. Smerus (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please look at the instructions for who to notify, which is probably more than you've done so far. What FA criteria specifically are in doubt? Is it only stability? This process takes at least four weeks for most articles, so hopefully, stability can be restored within the FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , which edits exactly have caused the problem? SarahSV (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing instability, and no deficiencies relative to WP:WIAFA have been specified. FAR is not dispute resolution. I suggest putting the FAR on hold until at least two weeks after the close of the RFC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This is premature. Once the RFC closes, then the page will likely become somewhat stable again. Seems like a long process to nominate it again for FA if it gets delisted now. Patience and let the process play through in the RFC. oncamera   (talk page)  19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not seek to use FAR for dispute resolution: it is only that some areas (eg. note 6 in the article) which have been added during the discussion are way out of FA standards, and cannot be adjusted while the RfC is going on without further edit arguing. I specifically asked above for a suspension of FA status, as there seems to be no way of withdrawing the FA standard apart from the review process. But if editors feel that suspension is not possible and FAR should only be moved after RfC resolution, so be it. I just hope in that case that someone will soon take on the task of resolving it. However the RfC is resolved it will need a rewrite. --Smerus (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerus, can you elaborate on specifically what concerns you have regarding the FA criteria other than stability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

, I guess in the present situation it would be best to hope that the RfC will be soon resolved. In the light of the closing decision the article is then likely to need some rewriting and I will then submit it to FAR in the hope that the revision will still meet FA standards. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All right. In that case I will put this review on hold pending the closure of the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two months later ... it appears that the RFC is still open. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, we are still waiting. As the furore has died down and the votes for the different alternatives are in, it shouldn't be a complex problem to close....if there are any volunteers out there............--Smerus (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the RFC closed with no consensus.  what next ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Smerus, you mentioned above that you thought it likely rewriting would be needed based on the closing decision - does the no-consensus result change that? If so, are there outstanding concerns related to the FA criteria? If no, what is the timeline for that rewriting? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, there is some (peaceful so far) editing and discussion going on at present in the wake of the RfC. The article needs updating in various other ways, including listing and format of sources etc. I estimate about two weeks to complete this work and to ensure that nothing flares up again. Then it would be helpful if other editors could take a look and be satisfied that it still meets FA. I will post again here when ready. With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Having made quite a few formatting and cleaning edits myself (earlier in May), I'm confident this article continues to meet the FA criteria. and, I'm thinking closing this may called for? Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically this still isn't listed. Smerus, do you want to withdraw the nomination, or list it for review? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article now seems stable, contentious edits have been reverted or corrected, and there is no more controversy on the talk page. One editor who provoked much of the original fuss is now banned from Wikipedia. I am indebted to Aza24 for the edits he has made. I would therefore withdraw the proposal for review. Thanks to everyone for their patience.--Smerus (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.