Wikipedia:Featured article review/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly/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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC).

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

 * Notified: Captain Zyrain, the FAC nominator, has been blocked, Sarsaparilla is a major contributor who also has been blocked. WikiProject United Nations, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics 03-30-2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the extensive issues as noted on the talk page by. These include: original research, unverified statements, sources that should be replaced with higher-quality ones. posted concerns about canvassing in the original FAC, and the nominator is blocked as a sock. A peer review in 2015 identified issues with non-NPOV and comprehensiveness, problems which do not seem to have been resolved. Due to the extensive problems with the article, (FAR co-ord) gave permission to wave the two-week notice requirement. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) for all the reasons above. Also so more time can be devoted to salvageable content Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delist - is one of the most deficient FAs I've ever. Major POV issues, and/because the sourcing is a mess, relying almost exclusively on groups advocating this.  IMO the Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 and Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 precedents would apply here. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy per HF; too much to address at FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delist agree w/above (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sppedy delist I'll also note some SYNTH/OR issues as well such as One of the main purposes for the creation of a UNPA is enhancing UN accountability and legitimacy. The United Nations System spent more than $1.8 billion of public money in 2005[80] and its own auditors have pointed out that it lacks adequate internal controls to protect against waste, fraud and mismanagement.[81] One of those citations is a budget report, the other an audit report; neither discuss the relevance of a UNPA. And yes clear POV/unattirbuted opinion issues, not to mention outdated! -Indy beetle (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - Is it time to move this one on to FARC or to close it? It looks like there's definitely a consensus forming to speedy this one. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.