Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/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 delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC).

ROT13

 * Notified: Matt Crypto, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science

The article fails 1(c) due to the use of references like Usenet group comments, blogs and raw code. Parts of the article (in Variants, Implementation) are completely unsourced. There are also 1(b) concerns: if we remove the unreliable sources and their associated content, the article will be too short to meet the "comprehensive" criterion. Specifically, I think the article lacks formal pseudocode, implementation details (e.g. function in ASCII) and cryptographic details (e.g. substitution cipher not mentioned in body, or explained), and there may be other content that is missing.

The FAC was in 2004, when standards were completely different—the article looked like this. The FAR in 2007 also held the article to vastly different standards to those we use in 2018. So the article has never passed through an FA-related process under the rigorous standards of today. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * wow, if ever there were a need for "speedy delist" in FAR, this would be it. Getting this to current FA standards would practically reqiure WP:TNT. The sourcing and formatting are atrocious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, please, per . Let's IAR and delist this. It's so far from modern standards as to be almost comical—I'd barely place it at Start or B class. -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that IAR delisting is preferable, and in fact I suggested it myself. (I would rate it C class.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - looking at the previous FAR (Featured article review/ROT13/archive1), that could have been closed as no consensus (and hence delist) even then really. I am open to speedy delisting, but as that is out-of-process am happy to get a more solid consensus from the other FAR coordinators. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No objection to a speedy delist from me, given the state of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * At 5 comments for delisting in the space of 4 hours, this is one of the most active reviews we've had for some time. Consensus seems clear. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.