Wikipedia:Featured article review/Holden/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) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC).

Holden

 * Notified: User talk:OSX, User talk:GTHO, User talk:Fitzpatrickjm, WP:AWNB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WT:COMPANIES July 2021 notification

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the heavy reliance on company materials and also unreliable sources, per my talk page notice. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , neither the talk page notification, nor the listing here identifies which text that is sourced to company materials breaches WP:ABOUTSELF. It would be difficult to write a comprehensive company article without using the company's own sources; we need to know instances where that is done inappropriately.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, 1c) does require high-quality RS, which I believe should not use a large chunk of self-sourcing if possible. Holden was the only Australian car company that existed, so while it was operational, it was the de facto national car company in the way that Qantas is the de facto national airline. If you go to google books there are dozens of full-length books that are specifically about Holden, more than there are on some Prime Ministers of Australia. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This article uses many book sources already; could you please provide some specific information that is left out and that should be included to meet comprehensiveness? Company articles (like schools) will use self-sourcing, and as long as it is done appropriately, that is not a reason to delist, and high quality is dependent upon the content area.  We should provide specific examples of content from reliable sources that is not included, but should be, to cover major facts, per 1b. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC no edits to address concerns (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - you nominated this article for FAR on Christmas Day. You might want to give people a bit more time given the time of year. Deus et lex (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist no substantial progress so far, the article still has cleanup banners. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist. Tagged as needing additional references and for vague or ambiguous time. DrKay (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist, cleanup needs, unaddressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.