Wikipedia:Featured article review/Washington, D.C./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) 2:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC) [1].

Washington, D.C.

Notified: Epicadam, Dmford13, PRRfan, Keystone18, JohnInDC, Aude, (notified top 5 editors in edit count and all users with over 5% authorship except for one whose contribution is mostly an IAbot run( WP Cities, WP USA, WP Library of Congress, WP urban studies, WP Geography, noticed August 2024

Review section

Discussions on the article's talk page have identified sizable issues with sourcing and and focus. Hog Farm _Talk 01:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D.C.—my birthplace, my family's home for over 100 years, a city I love so much that I have its flag on my body. I would love for its article to remain an FA. But it definitely needs work. I've shared my thoughts on talk about the article's problems, particularly overuse of low-quality sources and meandering focus. D.C. is an actual city that people live in, not just somewhere for government workers in Maryland and Virginia to commute into and tourists to visit. The article ought to reflect that. I'm open to attempting a save, but I've never done anything like that before, so I would appreciate any advice, or for that matter a coconspirator. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read through the discussion I tend to agree with your points on scope. Perhaps if that sort of information was shifted to Washington metropolitan area (which could use the help), that would more clearly define the subject of this page? One thing I note looking through is the article has a couple of sections (Culture and Infrastructure stand out) where it jumps straight into details without placing items in context. Surely there is something to know about Washington, D.C. culture? CMD (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My main objection is that the article focuses mostly on NW over the other areas of the city. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, are you intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a significant effort to save the article, I'm down to join in. Sdkb ^talk 07:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got time for it, yeah. @Generalissima also expressed interest. @Sdkb: Mind if I pull you into a group chat on Discord? We can divvy up areas of focus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm more likely to help out by reviewing than by making tons of direct edits, so it might be better for me to stay on-wiki. Sdkb ^talk 18:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Generalissima and I anticipate being able to get started in the next day or two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to help with the review stage, but I certainly don't have the degree of familiarity with the city and its major sources as the others here do. Hog Farm _Talk 22:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Tamzin? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Nikkimaria: Hi there. Sorry about that. I've talked this over with Generalissima and I think we've both come to the opinion that the article is in a significantly worse state than we'd realized. This would be less a matter of an FA save, and more a matter of getting a currently B- or C-class article straight to FA. I've fixed some of the most glaring issues, and have added a lot of inline maintenance tags for someone in the future (maybe even me) to work from. And Generalissima has done some work on rewriting the history section that she may or may not wind up putting into the article independent of GA/FA status. But I think the best way to go ahead here is to delist, leaving future editors the chance for the more gradual process of first a new GAN and then later a new FAC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no probability of a save. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above to allow for rewriting outside the pressure of the FAR system. Hog Farm _talk 14:13, 4 April 2025 (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) 02:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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