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) 1:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

Indonesia[edit]

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Review commentary[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources

Ref formatting all over.

Many one or two sentence paragraphs.

Duplicate reference and cite errors.

Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)

Odd image placement with text sandwiching.

Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different styles of English.

Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Fails 1e (stability). Article undergoes major changes on a regular basis, such as the addition[2][3][4][5] and removal[6] of substantial pieces of content (examples from the last 30 days of changes not performed as part of the review process). The article is more than twice as large as it was when promoted and reverting to an earlier revision could lead to reinsertion of outdated material and removal of relevant content, nor would it address the reason(s) why the page is under constant revision. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Significant attention is needed to changes since nomination, and such work is not occurring. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for reasons above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (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) 21:03, 25 February 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.