Wikipedia:Featured article review/S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897/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 kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Review commentary

 * Notified: Bishonen, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Sweden

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the article having large sections of it being unreferenced. Paragraphs throughout it lack citations to back up what is written in it. Examples of the problem being in the "The 1896 fiasco" and "The 1897 disaster" sections. GamerPro64 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I know there is no Featured Article criterion that requires a paragraph (or any particular size block of text) to be referenced. FACR 1c states: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". In The 1896 fiasco there are six references; The 1896 fiasco contains four. Is the substance of your reason for this review that you do not believe that the thirteen principal references in the article do not appropriately support all of the claims in the text? If so, may I ask if you've read all (or any) of the references and have been able to identify which claims have not been appropriately referenced? --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty much in RexxS camp on this particular matter. The guidelines do not demand we have inline references unless a particular issue is controversial and needs a direct reference. The only time I get really strict about direct references is in the case I just mentioned, in scientific articles or in biographies of living or recently deceased persons. I'm going to read over the article and see if I find any specific points that really do need a direct reference.--MONGO 13:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:GamerPro64...the original primary author of the article, User:Bishonen, has apparently added a bunch more refs to the article and standardized all the formats to make them uniform. Was there other issues that needed to be addressed?--MONGO 16:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * GamerPro, could you specify a bit more precisely what you feel needs reference bolstering?
 * Peter Isotalo 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, apologizes for not responding to all of this sooner. Anywho, looking at the article again, there is an increase in referencing. However, I'm now concerned about how I perceive this article and calling out flaws in it. When I originally read the article, I was questioning the lack of sourcing in parts of the article. My thought process was on whether or not the references support the claims in the text, RexxS. I will admit to not reading any of the references so I may have jumped to conclusions. I would like to get a second opinion on this article because of my now lack of confidence towards this review. GamerPro64  03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No reason to beat yourself up here. The article did become featured quite some time ago and periodic questioning is important to ensure an article has been maintained or to identify possible inadequacies.--MONGO 11:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section mainly focus on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus to delist at this time and the nomination has stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I started this nomination in April yet don't feel for having it demoted. It probably does need to be looked at again, but I'm not voting for or against it. GamerPro64  17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.