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) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [1].

Harold Innis[edit]

Notified: Bwark, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, Wikiproject Canada, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Linguistics, 2023-08-14

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I found many additional sources that were not used in this article, which I posted on the article's talk page, and uncited passages (including the whole "Cod fishery" section). Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So the article is using numerous BOOKS like biographies as sources, and you're saying that it's not FA material because it doesn't use the random journal articles that you've pasted on the talk page. In the humanities, journal articles tend to be speculative and theoretical, advancing particularly detailed or arcane theses that have little use to article writing here. This is a difficulty with almost all humanities topics on this project. No good ~~humanities~~ biography FA should rely on journal articles basically *at all*, IMO. The criticism that it fails to use random journal articles is weak. The way that FAR is used continues as it has for a decade to boggle me completely, and many others who gave up on the FA stuff long ago. (uninvolved in this article; no pings pls.) Outriggr (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a closer look at the sources used, and I am concerned about the number of times that Innis is used as a primary source, and if the article might have original research. For example, the following is only cited to one of Innis's work: "He saw the Soviet Union as a stabilizing counterbalance to the American emphasis on commercialism, the individual and constant change...." If this is important enough to mention in the article, I would expect a high-quality secondary source would have the same interpretation of the research and could be cited instead. This is just one example; if someone is willing to fix up the article, I am happy to provide additional examples. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to FARC Z1720's concerns are valid IMO and I don't see ongoing improvement. Additionally, the lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD and could benefit from trimming and the citation format does not appear to be consistent. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move to FARC work is not ongoing to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements since May 2023. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist unsourced passages remain. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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