Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hillary Clinton/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) 2:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC) [1].

Hillary Clinton

Notified: Wasted Time R, WP Obama, WP Bio, WP Chicago, WP Clinton, WP Illinois, WP International relations, WP NY, WP Politics, WP Congress, WP US, WP Women, WP Women writers, WP Women's History, talk page notice 2022-03-04

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because some months ago I raised concerns on the talk page—especially length/conciseness/summary style and the related issue of overreliance on news sources (also relevant to FACR #1c) rather than scholarly analysis or retrospective which is helpful to sort out which issues are of lasting importance and merit a mention in this article (as opposed to sub-articles that exist or could be created). There wasn't much article improvement in response to these concerns, so I'm hoping to bring in more FAR regulars to comment on the criteria and hopefully improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off the bat, I'm not seeing much unsourced content. Has that been addressed since your initial concerns comment? If not, it might be helpful to elaborate or tag unsourced content. ––FormalDude talk 06:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained at the original notification months ago, the abusively excessive verbosity (at over 17,000 words of readable prose) is the first indication of an article that a) is no longer watchlisted or tended to FA standards by its FAC nominator (Wasted Time R has not edited the article for six years), and b) an article that has expanded to an absurd length in news style rather than reflecting due weight of high quality sources or c) maintained in summary style. Saving this article's star is unlikely to be possible within the remit of FAR. It (and all other political bios like it, reflecting excessive verbosity and failure to reflect highest quality sources with tight prose) need to be delisted and rewritten top-to-bottom and re-submitted to FAC. Tagging unsourced content would not be a productive use of time, as radically trimming and summarizing to high quality sources is instead in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged and mentioned here ... I won't repeat what I said earlier about article size and sourcing at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 49#FA sweeps. But re "is no longer watchlisted or tended to FA standards by its FAC nominator", yes I am guilty of that. For various reasons I retired from working on this article (and other contentious hot-topic political articles) during 2015/2016. Rest assured, if I had known I was going to be leaving the article soon, I never would have put it up for FAC in 2014. But I didn't know. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC it does not look like anyone has committed to improving this article as necessary to meet the FA criteria (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC This article needs a major trim, including removing unreliable and low-quality sources and spinning out or shifting information to daughter articles. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. Without Wasted Time R, I see little hope of the article being restored to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and summary style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no progress in addressing concerns, issues remain (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist those who might correct the deficiencies have not engaged; exists have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This article is still way too long, and sources really need to be trimmed. A prominent figure like Clinton should have excellent, high-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.