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) 0:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC) [1].

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Poetry, Midnightdreary, Jm34harvey, Susmuffin, Reify-tech

I am nominating this featured article for review because... The article has a lot of "citation needed" tags, is outdated, and isn't comprehensive enough to be FA. Aside from unsourced statements, the Commemorations and namesake section might need some hand or possibly some paragraph needs to be rewritten. This article is very important to be looked at. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify in what way you feel the article is "outdated"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is simply not comprehensive enough. There are prpbably more scholars that can added to the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just randomly passing through... I think these kinds of critiques need to be much more specific. I'm sure there is recent Poe scholarship, but for a topic like this, we can't include everything, so people need a better sense of what you think is missing. Zagalejo (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not really an expert when it comes to this article. The main reason why I brought this article to FAR was because the article needs some hands. So, I believed other FAR reviewers can point that out. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to more specific commentary on what might be missing. So far as I know, the article here is comprehensive and up to date with scholarship. There may be more recent critiques related to his writing, but his biography hasn't changed much. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Center for Science and Education "English Language Teaching" journal article needs to go; the Canadian Center of Science and Education is on Beall's List. I don't see why we should be citing crimelibrary.com/truTV in a FA about Poe. The Burns School of Communication piece looks like some sort of undergrad/journalism school web piece; there is going to be much better sourcing available. This needs some general cleaning-up. Hog Farm _Talk 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The poeboston.blogspot.com blog needs to go too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the worst sourcing is gone and the CN tags have all been addressed. However, some of the iffy sources like the Burns undergrad piece and the predatory journal article still remain. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just here to respond that I was told that listing here would encourage additional support in making improvements. As I predicted, that did not turn out to be the case. A lack of specific additional criticisms has also made it hard to address as the only editor putting forth efforts to improve. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added "citation needed" tags in the article to text that will need a citation. The sources also need to be thoroughly looked at and replaced if not high quality. This includes "Burns, Niccole (November 15, 2006)" and "Sun, Chunyan (April 23, 2015)", as identified above. "Harrowitz, Nancy (1984)", "Foye, Raymond, ed. (1980)", "Carlson, Eric Walter (1996)" and "Nelson, Randy F. (1981)" are listed as sources but are not used as inline citations: if they are high quality, I suggest that they are used and if not I suggest that they are removed. I also see lots of potential sources in "Further reading" that should be evaluated for inclusion as inline citations or removed. The inline citations use an inconsistent style: some put the full source name in the citation, others use an sfn template and the source is listed under "Sources". This should be standardised (I suggest the sfn templates). @Midnightdreary: if you are interested in working on this article, I will strike my "delist" declaration below. This is not an exhaustive list, as I have not taken a close look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only one who seems to be interested in working on the article which, as you can imagine given the nature of the subject, is a tall task. However, I don't have as much time or energy to contribute as I once did. Some of these critiques seem to be based on changing standards of which I am not familiar. For example, it was always my understanding that a citation used only once should use the full source name rather than the sfn template. Alas, citation style has never been my expertise and I see little hope of anyone else contributing. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist Work has stalled and no significant edits to address the remaining concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist No support to improve. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2025 (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) 10:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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