Wikipedia:Featured article review/Siege of Malakand/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 7:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: User talk:SGGH, User talk:Raymond Palmer (only editors with > 2% contribs), WT:MILHIST, WT:INB, WT:PAK, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Afghanistan Sep 2021 notice
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because per my talk page notice, almost all the sources Churchill, Hobday and Elliott-Lockhart were part of the British military force in this battle, so this article is majority primary-sourced Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delist - Entirely dependent on primary sources. Factual inaccuracies are abound. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- TrangaBellam please see the instructions at the top of the FAR page; Keep and Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying issues to be addressed (such as specific examples of "factual inaccuracies"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - problematic usage of participant sources abound.
- "This led to confusion amongst the Pashtun forces, "like ants in a disturbed ant–hill" as observed Blood" - I've written enough articles about battles to know that one side's "confusion of the enemy" is the other side's "orderly retreat". This needs a secondary source
- "the British advanced farther into Pashtun territory and engaged a force of "several thousand"" - When possible, strengths should be sourced to secondary sources, not members of the opposing army
- I see that Pashtun losses are only sourced to a British participant, a secondary source is most certainly needed for this.
- These are only a few examples, but with almost the entire battle section sourced to British participants, this isn't sourced well enough for FA. Secondary sources would be needed for a better understanding of Pashtun strength, movements, motivations, and losses. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no efforts so far to fix deficiencies (t · c) buidhe 07:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, sourcing needs overhauled. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist sourcing concerns still remain. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2021 (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. DrKay (talk) 17:46, 1 January 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.