Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minnesota/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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

Minnesota

Notified: Ravedave, Elkman, Jonathunder, WxGopher, Kablammo, Gog the Mild, AlexiusHoratius, WP Minnesota, WP US, WP Geography

Review section

This is a featured article, but some sections have 0 ref such as literature and entertainment sections. That's quite unacceptable. And the "popular culture" section has 1 ref, clearly not enough. Another problem is that they look more like a list of things than an encyclopedia section. This needs to be fixed, or FA status should be removed. I raised this issue about 4 months ago in the talk page, and it has been ignored until today. 2402:800:4383:7390:6535:B839:43C2:590E (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I have completed the notifications for you. Also, noting that this is a 2006 promotion whose nominator is no longer active. Also, the article has considerably more issues than identified by the IP (out of date). Most of the article is uncited, the third line of the lead is redundant (The state has many lakes, and is known as the "Land of 10,000 Lakes"), and have a look at this about a surprising claim that has been at both Minnesota and Minneapolis for more than a decade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RD

Well, the article actually starts in a good way, at least when compared to Oklahoma below: well-cited, good use of scholarly works in the more science-based sections, good organization and use of images. Then it completely falls off the rails once it hits the second half of the article. Issues spotted:

The economy section data is stuck in 2006. I find it hard to believe that no more figures have been released since then;
The Culture section is practically unsourced (performing arts, entertainment, literature, popular culture - the whole of it). Sections about culture are also very prone to fluff, advertising and digressions into not very relevant stuff, all of which can be found here;
Transport, media, politics, sports sections - large unsourced paragraphs can be found in these sections;
I actually found the tribal component of politics (?) very interesting, but it's not explained well (what issues do they negotiate with the state in a "bilateral basis"?), also unsourced;
The organized sports subsection is unsourced, and not well written in the way that we just go from fact to fact without seeing the big picture. Why are these teams important, viewership numbers, money generated by them/their respective sports in the state?;
The intro to tourism is largely unsourced and when sourced, it's with poorly formatted links to Explore Minnesota, which constitutes advertising.

The article does not meet the FA criteria at the time and needs a lot of work to rise up to the current standard. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD, I agree with many of your points, and have removed the tourism section entirely. I have posted at the talk page of the Minnesota wikiproject to see if there is interest in upgrading the article to current standards. I suggest we wait a week to see if someone steps forward, and if not, the FA star should be removed. Kablammo (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kablammo: the convention is generally two weeks if no or little activity, stretching to as long as it takes if there are serious attempts at fixing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and maintenance of outdated sections such as Economy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per RetiredDuke. Unsourced subsections in Culture section. Poor structure, paragraphing and sourcing and unclear notability in the Organized sports subsection. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist article needs significant improvement as detailed above. Does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Uncited bits, out-of-date information in the economy section, along with other issues. Substantial work needed to reach the criteria. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:05, 9 November 2020 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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