Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Superman in film[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction. Nominator retired.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted to featured article status over 10 years ago. It's now tagged for update and citation needed, so no longer meets the featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I've had a look, the DC expanded section needs updating which shouldn't be too difficult, nor the cite needed tags. The bigger problem is the cast section, until recently it was a confusing table without any cites, someone appears to have deleted that and left a red link. They appear to be creating a new table in their sandbox either to put into the article or in the red linked article. I suppose my question is...if a new list goes into the article itself would the individual entries need referencing? I will ping Washracer123, they may wish to comment here. Szzuk (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[1], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and Lusotitan, I purchased Hone's book. Whats the plan? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The following books are currently cited without page number:

  1. Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3.
  2. Ride, W. D. L. (1999). "Article 23.9 – Reversal of Precedence". International code of zoological nomenclature. London: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ISBN 978-0-85301-006-7. OCLC 183090345.
  3. Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M. The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  4. Carpenter, Kenneth (1992). "Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America". In Mateer, Niall J.; Pei-ji Chen. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. ISBN 978-7-5027-1463-5. OCLC 28260578.
  5. Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  6. Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  7. Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85471-648-4.

Cited with page number, but the range is too large:

  1. Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.
  2. Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka. The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
  3. Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Arbitrary line break

  • I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
  • Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
  • There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
  • Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all

An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict.[141]" – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying take it all out apart from the first sentence, I agree and have done so. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of synonyms that aren't discussed, for example Stygivenator, though some are discussed under classification, it might be better under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are omissions like you say then perhaps those should be included. I'm doubtful I would have the competence to add this content myself, it is just too far out of my experience. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Connie Talbot[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject West Midlands

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls well below current standards. It was one of my first featured articles, and was promoted when expectations were quite different, and it hasn't really been kept up-to-date. While some of my older FAs have aged fairly well (I was pleased to get a positive comment about Dungeons & Dragons (album) when it ran on the MP a few weeks ago, despite being promoted back in 2007), some really haven't. I sadly do not have the time to work on the article at the moment, though there is some urgency: It was recently included as a forthcoming TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 20, 2018. I don't think that the article is good enough to go on the main page, and so Ealdgyth suggested that I send it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators: I wonder if anything can be done about this? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@WP:TFA coordinators: A final effort. Is there any chance that a different article could be put in place of this one? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
A better spot to discuss TFA selection would be at WT:TFA, where you'll get some outside input. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Though I know nothing about the subject, FAs about living people are always inherently unstable, and when it comes to someone this young, will become outdated extremely quickly? FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This article seems to go into a fair amount of detail about certain aspect of their life but seems to dip off in other areas. Featured articles should contain as much encyclopedic content as possible and this falls short on various areas; the biography feels short and just doesn't really go into much further detail than 2018, leaving a rather cliff face at the end of the article, so to speak. I would move for its removal. Miraheze-Logo.svg Eolais | Talk | Contribs
  • There seems to be quite a bit of unreferenced material here. I think the best option might be to de-list this one, in the hope that it can be improved and re-nominated in the future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. I had hoped TFA would lead to improvements, but that doesn't seem to have been the case. DrKay (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency, comprehensiveness, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for citation needed. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist per insufficient referencing, nothing beyond 2016 (outdated), and the article isn't comprehensive given its general lack of detail on artistry (genres, lyrics, influences). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)