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) 4:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [1].

Western Front (World War I)[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired

WP:URFA nom

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done[reply]
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've tried to tidy it up a little, and added some refs where I could find things in my (sadly limited) home library. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few citation needed tags. These are my edits: [2] I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. We are indeed trying to find proper sourcing auntieruth (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm somewhat reluctant to support delisting at this stage, the article falls well short of modern FA standards - it's really a GA. For a modern FA, I'd expect to see thematic discussions of important aspects of this campaign, and not just a high level summary of the fighting. For instance, there should be substantial coverage of the living standards the troops endured and how they were deployed (eg, the rotation of units in and out of the front line), changes in tactics, the impact on civilians, the massive logistical efforts, the post-war remediation of the ruined towns and farmland (which is still continuing, with farmers regularly finding unexplored ordinance) and how the campaign has been commemorated at remembered. There's a vast literature on all of these topics which can be drawn on. This would be a risky choice for an 11 November TFA given it's not really an example of Wikipedia at it's best - it's really Wikipedia at an adequate level at present. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's points seem fair in hindsight (and are in stark contrast to the lack of intellectual rigor put into my own comment below). I still feel that its probably "good enough" that delisting would be too extreme, but can agree that there are other aspects of the topic that would need to be covered were this article to go through an FA review today. (TLDR = I am impaled on fence). Anotherclown (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, @Auntieruth55: and @AustralianRupert: (and whoever else is working on this), I can see some recent activity and am happy to keep open while it's being worked on. Agree it is a broad/important article that'd be good to keep featured if possible. I'll nag again in a fortnight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the technical shortcomings have been resolved but the content leaves much to be desired. I'd fail it on B2. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this a bit, and agree with Keith. I don't think that criterion 1b is met as the article doesn't cover a range of key topics related to its subject. 1c is also not met as it does not provide a sufficiently through review of the literature on the topic. That said, the efforts by multiple editors to improve the article have been impressive. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Nick-D and Keith-264, can you specify what material you think is missing or underrepresented? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Schleffen Plan section is all wrong, the Entente was France, Russia and Britain, not every state at war with the Central Powers, there's a gap between the Marne and 1st Ypres, Verdun 1916 was an attrition attack to prepare the way for an attempt at a decisive battle, not a substitute for one, the Somme 1916 is Anglocentric, the Nivelle Offensive began well with the British attack at Arras and the French part inflicted huge casualties on the Germans; although there was no French breakthrough, the 2nd Battle of the Aisne captured more ground than any earlier offensive. The French mutinies coincided with Joffre's plan that the British would conduct a summer offensive in Flanders while the French army had a rest, so the significance of the mutinies can be overstated. Revising the prose and adding citations to this article is only the start.Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More