Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anne Frank/archive2

Anne Frank

Featured article candidates/Anne Frank

Notified: Wikiproject Jewish Women, Wikiproject Jewish history, [1]

@Ali Beary: please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there have been issues with cleanup tags for over a year, and there appears to have been no attempt to resolve these issues. This is an issue with criterions 1c and 2c. The issues are as follows:

In the paragraphs beginning with In May 1940 and In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn, there are unreliable source tags in the last sentence.

There is a "who?" cleanup tag after In January 2022, some investigators.

In the middle of the paragraph beginning with Witnesses later testified, there is a tag requesting a better source.

Near the end of the paragraph starting with On 19 August 2022, there is a clarification needed tag.

There's not many, but I believe that an article isn't good enough for FA if there's cleanup tags. Thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 18:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into the points you listed:

In May 1940: source replaced
In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
In January 2022, some investigators: clarified
Witnesses later testified: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
On 19 August 2022: clarified

– Editør (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali Beary, could you explain the issues with the two remaining tagged sources so it is clear what needs to be done to remove the tags? – Editør (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the two remaining cleanup templates and explained why in the first and second edit summary. I believe all issues in this review have now been resolved. – Editør (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Editør, what do you mean in the first edit summary by "with Wikipedia pages as sources"? Ali Beary _(talk!) 12:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The publications are notable and have a Wikipedia page to establish this. – Editør (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability and reliability are different things; a source can be notable but not reliable, or reliable but not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary was also meant to refer the reader to these Wikipedia pages that don't indicate any problems with reliability of the referenced publications.

@Nikkimaria, I think you are just explaining terms that could have been confused here. Or did you also mean to imply that you believe there is an issue with the reliability of these two sources? – Editør (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the specifics of the two sources, just noting that whether a Wikipedia page exists about them doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, noted.

@Ali Beary, have all issues now been resolved? – Editør (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all the issues are solved. The article may stay as a FA. Thank you for your work on fixing this! If something happens and the article is nominated for FAR once more, would you like to be pinged to fix it? Ali Beary _(talk!) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You may ping me, although I am not really a frequent contributor of this article. – Editør (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: could this review be closed? – 17:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see another review or two before closure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issues raised in this review, that surely was rather limited, seem to have been resolved two months ago and there has not been any activity here since early April. I think this review should be closed instead of kept open until someone raises more issues at some point in the future. – Editør (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]