Wikipedia:Featured article review/When God Writes Your Love Story/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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC).

When God Writes Your Love Story

 * ''Notified: Neelix, Sadads, ජපස, Iridescent, WP Books, WP Christianity, WP Literature, WP Sex, WP US, talk page notices back to 2013, including 2020-06-26

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the concerns about sourcing and POV continuously raised on talk since 2013, unresolved after the 2013 FAR was launched out of process. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Back in 2013, I guess, WP was more concerned with process than it was with quality. This is a terrible article and I stand by my assessment that I outlined then. Nothing has changed. jps (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said my piece on the talkpage. I don't have an issue with the 2013 FAR being closed—that rule against people immediately submitting new FAs to FAR existed for a reason, owing to a particular long-term abuse case who had exactly that as one of her preferred tactics for trying to bait editors into fighting each other—but this never met the FA criteria. Given that the only two editors who've ever shown an interest are both long-gone long-term abuse cases, it's unlikely anyone is going to make an effort to improve this. &#8209; Iridescent 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see the mucky-mucks stand up for process, I guess. I just miss the WP:IAR standard that could have been invoked to say, "hold on a second, maybe the nominator is making points that are not all about a rule we invented to deal with a completely unrelated problem." But, cha, better late than never. jps (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * John M Wolfson
 * This seems to have been subject to some WikiDrama back in 2013. For the record, I agree that the "3-6 month rule" exists for a reason and likewise have no problem with the old FAR being closed out of process. That said, I'll see what I can look at in the actual article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delist sourcing, comprehensiveness, neutrality. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist, zero engagement to resolve issues. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.