Wikipedia:Featured article review/Webley Revolver/archive1

Review section

There was a talk page discussion all the way back in 2011 that still has relevant criticism towards the article. Both its prose and sourcing does not meet the criteria in any way and overall seems clean cut in why it should be delisted in its current state. GamerPro64 16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yikes, this is so far gone that I say move it straight to FARC. Nearly 2/3 of the damn article is completely unsourced and there are [citation needed]s all over the place. @Nikkimaria: @Casliber: @DrKay: can we invoke WP:IAR and yeet this straight into removal? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any great urgency with this. Usually WP:FAR is very quiet. I will have a look later when I have an uninterrupted segment of time to do so though so am not ruling out fast-tracking, just highlighting it is not what we usually do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• This didn't meet the current FAC criteria when it was promoted, and there is no way it is salvageable in a reasonable period of time from its current state. It needs someone with some in-depth sources on British military handguns (they may be out there in Wikiland, but I don't know any members of Milhist that qualify). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not usually given to supporting dramatic moves in featured-level processes, but I agree with the suggestions above that we move straight to FARC here. The article clearly doesn't currently meet the B-class criteria due to the large qualities of unsourced material and I'm not convinced that any of the current sources are reliable. The huge amount of work required to bring it up to FA standard means that the resultant article would be almost entirely different from the current version. As a result, a FAC process would be the most appropriate way of confirming that a redeveloped article meets the the featured criteria, with the lighter-touch FAC/FARC process being inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I went through and applied a number of maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay - had a look now and tend to agree, so moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and layout. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per my comments in the FAR section above: the amount of work needed to bring this article to FA status is such that it's unlikely to be achieved through a FAR, and a new FAC would be required to re-certify the article is actually a FA. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist Pretty cut and dry here. GamerPro64 23:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist -- agree all above, just citing all the users reliably would be a bit of an undertaking, let alone the rest of the article. Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above, article is clearly too far gone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, significant uncited material. Fixing this would be better suited for a new FAC, not trying to cram it into a FAR. This isn't even B-class right now. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, I’ve long wondered how this is a FA. Cavalryman (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
• 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) 00:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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