Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2025

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]
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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [1].

Hurricane Claudette (2003)

[edit]
Notified: Hurricanehink, CrazyC83, WP Mexico, WP Weather, WP USA, formally noticed in May 2023, but discussion of issues dates back to 2021

I don't believe that this article, which is the now the fifth-oldest at WP:URFA/2020A that hasn't been accounted for, meets the current FA criteria. I'm not convinced that several of the sources used (earthlink.net, stormcarib, or OilVoices) are high-quality RS as required by the modern criteria. What is also concerning to me is the sourcing used - while admittedly there is not a whole lot in secondary literature out there for this storm, there are several pieces noted on the article's talk page. The earthlink.net source ("Texas Weather Information") has a date in the citation of 2006 although this webpage was archived as early as 2004 and appears to be contemporary weather notes from July 2003. If that is the case, then it looks like none of the sources post-date 2003, the year in which the storm occurred. Given this, and the fact that there is at least some extent of later discussion of this storm, I don't think this meets the FA sourcing expectations. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this Hog Farm (talk · contribs), this should have been worked on a long time ago, and to be honest I probably have a few other articles that need work. I have expanded the article, first the met history, and now I'm going to work on the impacts. I'll keep at it until it's up to 2025 standards! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I have expanded on the article, and gotten rid of the Stormcarib references. Please let me know if it's on the right direction. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: - thanks for working on this! Is OilVoice a high-quality RS? I see some stuff from the 2009 Monthly Weather Review article has been incorporated - do you think any of the other (admittedly somewhat limited) post-2003 sourcing on the article's talk page is useful? It just seems odd to me to only have sourcing from within a year of an event, but that is how things are for many of our weather articles. Hog Farm talk 16:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - good question, I changed it to different contemporary sources that appear more reliable. And as for sourcing being within a year of the event, there are a few exceptions: ref 39 (a compilation of various Texas storms), ref 47 (an analysis of the inland effects in Texas), and ref 10 (a journal paper about Claudette's strengthening). There aren't going to be too many long-term reports about a modest hurricane (especially compared to some of the beasts that have happened since then). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is greatly improved. Hog Farm talk 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the campsight is totally my bad, I just added that in. I hopefully fixed it. As for Mexican damage totals, either it was too minor to quantify, there aren't any surviving documents, or else extremely difficult to find. I tried a variety of searches (in Spanish), some of which also included other storms that hit Mexico that season. I wrote about a Mexican storm in 2005, and by that time there is a high quality document with a lot of info and damage totals... only there's no such document for 2003. So I'm stumped about the Mexican damage total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close w/o FARC here. Hog Farm talk 01:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close per HF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 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.

Delisted

[edit]
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) 8:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [2].

James Nesbitt

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Bradley0110; WT:BIO; WT:IRELAND; WT:NIR; talk-page notice 2023-03-29

Review section

[edit]

The older material still seems to be in reasonably good shape, but sentences like Nesbitt will reprise the role in a second series, which is due to begin production in 2012 make clear that the article is sorely in need of an update. Incorporating some of the more recent roles listed at James Nesbitt filmography would be a good first step; for instance, a lead role in Bloodlands (TV series) isn't discussed at all. New sources need to be considered too, such as this scholarly article and no doubt plenty of intervening press coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - issues unaddressed. Hog Farm talk 04:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 15 March 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.
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) 8:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC) [3].

Wood Badge

[edit]
Notified: PumpkinSky, Evrik, WikiProject Scouting, Noticed 15-05-23

Review section

[edit]

As noted in May 2023 by SandyGeorgia, this 2007 FA contains significant uncited text, sourcing of dubious quality, and prose and MOS issues such as MOS:OVERSECTION. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, uncited text and several sources are self-published personal websites. Hog Farm talk 04:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 15 March 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.
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) 5:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [4].

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]
Notified: User:YellowMonkey, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article will be merged per this discussion.Real4jyy (talk) 02:28, 9 March 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.
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) 5:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [5].

Ancient Egypt

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Ancient Egypt, [6]

Review section

[edit]

This 2008 FA suffers from problems that were highlighted by SandyGeorgia over a year ago, of which the most substantive are unsourced text and inconsistent citation style. In December, I tried to go over the history sections of the article to make sure everything there was cited. I discovered that the citations to one of the most heavily used sources didn't actually cover all of the text that they were used to support, and that this problem extends as far back as the version that originally passed FAC. So the article fails 1c and 2c before we can even evaluate the other criteria, and because the original FA is a rotten foundation to build upon, fixing it up would require us to vet every single sentence and find a new source for it—an effort tantamount to bringing the article to FA standard from scratch. A. Parrot (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As A. Parrot has already said, the issue with the sourcing not lining up (either partially or fully) runs deep. It would be a huge job to sort though each citation and find more where needed. (It is also a question of editor and resource availability, and the timescale over which this could be done.) Merytat3n (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to also state that in the infobox
kmmt
O49
, with the bread on top, is the correct name for "kmt", aka kemet, which is one of the name Ancient Egyptians called their land around the Middle and New Kingdom. Though in my opinion it shouldn't be in the infobox in the first place because the name of ancient Egypt changes over time. It is likely in the past they called ancient Egypt "tꜣwj", aka "Upper and Lower Egypt". If the title of the article have such elementary mistakes then I would imagine that bringing this up to featured article status would be difficult. 2600:4041:582A:4100:E0D3:725C:BA8F:4A13 (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 1 March 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.
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) 5:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [7].

Lethbridge

[edit]
Notified: Kmsiever, Hwy43, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Cities

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple uncited statements. There's also an "update needed" banner at the top of the page concerning the city's newspaper that needs to be addressed. "Economy" section has no post-2008 information, and the "History" section has one event after 1967, and I think there's information that can be added about the history of the city from the sources listed in "Further reading". Z1720 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 March 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.
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) 5:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [8].

Boogeyman 2

[edit]
Notified: PanagiotisZois, Paradoxasauruser, WikiProject Film

Review section

[edit]

I am not sure this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA as raised by multiple users in the talk page (thread 1; thread 2; FAC, notice given).

Regarding the following specific criteria:

- well-written: the prose is informative but somewhat unpolished in some places, and could be rewritten to be more engaging

- comprehensive: Production, release, and sequel may benefit from expansion

- well-researched: the article would benefit from additional sources and is missing citations, for instance, no citation for the Cast and for "Evolution of the killer's mask, dubbed Boogie Mask". NB: I wasn't sure if Cast needs citations in general but I have seen that many good articles have it, e.g. The Thing (1982 film)#Cast.

- media: lacks significant use of images and other media, where appropriate, as required for FA.

N.B.: the talk page has not addressed these changes (the previous thread is also from 7 years ago) so I suspect the original authors may be inactive. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - How is the lack of images to get this demoted from Featured Articles? GamerPro64 22:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Caleb Stanford: First of all, the FAR notifications step is not optional. Please complete step 6, "Notify relevant parties", per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. PanagiotisZois is still an active editor. Second... 1, 3, and 4 are not very actionable as they stand. Fair-use requirements are fairly strict on Wikipedia (see WP:NFC). If you want to upload some and think you can justify them, great, but they are only rarely required. Jaws (film) is an example of a FA-class article that only uses a movie poster as a fair-use image, say. For 1, this is a vague comment. I'm sure some people can be found to disagree with any of the prose. Do you have any particular examples of difficult-to-fix paragraphs that need rewriting that aren't just stylistic preferences? And for 3, Cast sections are often implicitly considered sourced to the credits of a work itself. If you've found a source you'd love to include which has the full cast, sure, add it, but if you'd just be adding a citation to the film's credits, it's not required. In the same way, the mask caption is just stating how the image was compiled. Now, that said, I do agree it would be nice if the uploader could add more specific links in the image upload (e.g. the timestamp of the still, a link to the page of the blog, etc.), but this isn't a significant enough issue to FAR most likely.
    • The main possibly actionable complaint here is #2, comprehensive. The article is a bit on the short side. However, there is a range of opinions on how deep an article should go, and an "overview" approach is valid too. But it helps to be more specific. Are there in-depth sources that are not currently consulted in the article, but should be? What are they? That may be what is helpful here. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment. I've just made the required notifications myself. Not a huge deal but coordinators might consider starting the "clock" on moving to FARC as starting slightly later due to the delay. SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: To be honest, I don't think the article is exactly FA-worthy. At least, not for me, based on the kind of work I expect of myself when I work on media-related articles nowadays. Just looking at the "Reception" section, for example, the section is extremely small and uses only 6 sources. Granted, this is mostly due to the lack of overall sources that reviewed the film. Another issue is that outside of IGN, none of the other sources are exactly high-quality. The section also relies a lot on quotations from the sources, rather than paraphrasing them and what each reviewer had to say about the film.
Regarding the topic of "Comprehensiveness", while I do agree that the sections on "Production" and "Release" should ideally be longer, back when I wrote the article, this was all of the sources I could find. Maybe there's more, but I didn't find them back in 2017. However, I disagree that the section on the sequel needs to be longer. It's not really necessary for article to place much emphasis on preceeding or succeeding installments.
Lastly, much of the "Production" section relies on primary sources or ones that may not necessarily be reliable. There's the blog of Renee O'Connor, that of Jerad S. Marantz, and the website Mental Floss. As for the "Reception" section, I'm not sure about the reliable of the sources regarding the film's premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre, and its theatrical release in Russia and Italy. Taking some of these things into account, I think the article should be delisted. It may be good enough for GA-status, but definitely not for FA, unless more sources are found to expand certain sections and replace the more low-quality / primary sources.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the ping, @Caleb Stanford! hard to believe it's been seven years since I copyedited this guy. iirc it was to bump it up from GA to FA status.
reviewing it now, the text could use some polish, and maybe another image or two. But for comprehensiveness and research quality, I don't think there's room for significant improvement. It's pretty solid length without going overboard, and being a sequel to an already bargain bin horror flick, most of its citeable coverage will be from the indie film scene, cult horror blogs, first-hand behind the scenes, etc. Unless it gets rereleased by a boutique label I don't see that changing.
I'm biased since I worked on it and love horror (with a special soft spot for dinky entries such as these) - so I'm inclined to let it ride as FA. but! i've also never worked too closely with article status qualifications, and am open to it returning to GA status if the community feels that it doesn't belong in the FA rotation.
hope that helps one way or the other. never done one of these before! Paradoxasauruser (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally when this article came up for Featured status I was against it due to it not being well-rounded. Since it has come under review, I did a little digging for more and alternate sources that can be used, while there is deffinately more that can be found here are some that can be added.

--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Like the original film, Boogeyman 2 was also panned by critics, with most critics" If the word "critics" being used twice close together in the first sentence of a main section is any indication, that is not a good sign. I will say this could easily be a GA with some CE. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 02:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: "Broad" is not the word I would use. The article itself never should have passed FA to begin with, as it is missing significant chunks of information. I can do a little digging for more source, though I will be unable to implement them as that should rest upon the original nominee who brought it to Featured. Right now I am currently working on mentoring a user, and working on expanding my own articles for Featured so that will prevent me from doing more in depth research and implementation for this particular article. I will do as best I can.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is, even with any work I shall do on this article will be insufficient. Sourcing format has a lot to be desired and could use more work. I will try my hand at streamlining it tomorrow when I get some free time--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I see nothing wrong with the prose or the restricted use of media. The search for additional sources was underwhelming, indicating that it is a comprehensive summary of the available material and that better sources are not extant. The featured article criteria do not distinguish between major topics and bargain bucket trivia. Of its type, it would appear to meet the criteria. DrKay (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If PanagiotisZois, the nominator, isn't comfortable with FA status, then that's enough to downgrade to "weak." Buuuuut I'm still not sold on basically any of the complaints about the article as-is, other than a general "perhaps it could be better with more secondary sources on development". Movie articles aren't meant to be a repository of every single scintilla of trivia that is to be found on a topic, and the suggested sources seem quite weak (a film opened in Italy? That's... most films in the era of international distribution.). Some close repetitions are unavoidable, and I don't see using the word "critics" twice as being an issue - could be argued it's clarity-by-repetition as to who we're talking about. If Paleface Jack wants to take a try and digging up more sources, by all means go for it, but the existing suggested links aren't selling me that major sources went unconsulted - none of them say anything interesting not already in the article. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the film getting a theatrical release in Italy is notable because this is an American movie that received a direct-to-video release in its own country, but a theatrical one in foreign markets. Hardly the only film this has happened to, but still a rare occurrence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist with the disclaimer that am a friend of Paleface Jack but have been following the FAR closely since it opened. The article is 1867 words long, but if you take away the lead and the plot section, neither of which have to be cited, then what are you left with...cut and paste direct quotes or slight rephrasing from Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DrKay has a good point re criteria; haven't resolved it in my head yet; its a real puzzle. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I find the "Reception" section to be unprofessionally written, failing FACR 1a), while high-quality reliable sources need to be used as per 1c), not just if they are available. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Having looked over the article again, there are issues in terms of size. The "Production" section could be longer, but given the scarcity of sources, one could forgive that. But the "Reception" sections definitely needs work, as barely any of the sources used come from reliable publications; let alone high-quality ones. It may not take much to improve the article, but as it currently stands, it really is not up to FA standards. And seeing as the original nominator has no interest in revisiting this article, delisting it seems to be the only option going forward. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:09, 14 March 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) 15:04, 15 March 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.
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) 4:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [9].

Alien vs. Predator (film)

[edit]
Notified: M3tal H3ad, WikiProject Film

Review section

[edit]

This article has been poorly maintained since its promotion in 2008. Caleb Stanford raised concerns about comprehensiveness and prose quality that have gone unaddressed. I also feel like the lead is too short and doesn’t provide an engaging introduction to the topic. The Critical response and Other media sections are in need of significant expansion. Rotten Tomatoes has over 140 reviews, though the Critical response section only lists a few quotes from a handful of sources. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC –  Cast section is unsourced, lead is missing information on reception and box office, and various sections are not comprehensive. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 22 February 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.
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) 4:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [10].

Tim Duncan

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject National Basketball Association, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

[edit]

Back in September, I messaged on the talk page about concerns regarding the article. It was promoted to FA last 2007, and has been 17 years since. Now, the article has issues about prose and sourcing. No responses on the talk page. ScarletViolet tc 14:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide more details per WP:FAR, specifically: Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the paragraphs lack citations. Also, what makes slamduncan.com and jockbio.com reliable sources? ScarletViolet tc 08:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I look at the current version, every paragraph in the body has at least one citation (and most have more). Sports Illustrated said SlamDuncan.com was his personal website.[11] JockBio had no objections at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126 § Jockbio.com. —Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: There needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. A citation in the middle of a paragraph does not verify the information that comes after it. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I didn't see that explictly at WP:FACR, but at least it's an actionable item. —Bagumba (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: While not explicitly stated, it is covered under 1c. Since this is a BLP, citations to verify information are doubly important. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the second bullet raised on the talk page is now resolved, and I'm not seeing any missing citation paragraphs except this one: "In that game, Duncan scored 25 points in the first half, his biggest haul in a half of an NBA Finals game. However, the Spurs lost the game in overtime, and then lost the deciding seventh game.". If someone familiar with the subject matter can replace the jockbio cites and take a look at cleaning up some of the other citations & duplicate links, add address this sentence, that might cover it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Caleb Stanford: There are also concerns with overly long paragraphs raised above. Has an effort to find more recent sources happened? If an article's improvements have stalled, and no one is willing to address concerns, then I cannot recommend a keep. Z1720 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are still visible issues. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see some further discussion about the fitness of jockbio as a source here. It's used pretty heavily, but the linked RSN discussion only involved two editors and was from 2012. I suspect the three CN tags aren't going to be a big deal to resolve, but if jockbio ends up needing to be replaced, that'll add quite a bit more work to this. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I could live with long paragraphs and a few cn tags, but I think the issues go beyond that: jockbio.com isn't the greatest source (one low-participation RSN thread from a decade ago does not a high-quality reliable source make), and my spot check indicated that the article contains a lot of details that go beyond what the citation strictly supports. Expectations for FA sourcing have changed a lot since 2007, and I'm not convinced the article has fully kept up. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 8 March 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) 04:37, 9 March 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.
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC) [12].

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]
Procedural FAR

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has been merged: [13]. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 3 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/March_2025&oldid=1282972184"