Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2021

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept edit

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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [1].

Menstrual cycle edit

Notified: EMsmile, WikiProject Sanitation, WP Medicine, WP Anatomy, WP Biology, WP Women’s Health, 2021-01-24
FAR commentary found at
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 2004 promotion from the “Refreshing Brilliant Prose” phase that was last reviewed in 2008 and has never been at current FA standards. There is considerable uncited text, UNDUE text, and most of the sources are not up to snuff per WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDDATE; additional detail on talk. The article does not stay tightly focused on the topic, and also omits coverage of closely related areas (eg In other animals). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing that I noticed about this article a little while ago when I first looked at it, is that there was some overlap with the article on menstruation. So I think both articles should be looked at hand in hand as they need to fit together snugly and not have too much overlap. The article on menstruation used to have lower view rates than the article on menstrual cycle but has caught up recently, see here. Could the reason be that the quality of the article "menstruation" has improved relative to "menstrual cycle" or that it is linked more from other articles? Anyway, I just wanted to flag that the two articles should be looked at together. EMsmile (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable discussion on talk of other problems, including structure of the article which treats menstruation basically like a disease state. Many of the sources used are extremely dated (see WP:MEDDATE) or are not WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS, much less high quality MEDRS. Prose is rough; redundancies like “however”, “subsequently” abound. There are numerous short stubby paragraphs. The article looks like some student editors got hold of it an chunked in their favorite theories based on primary studies. Additional issues at the article, where sources are misrepresented, may be a result of WP:ADVOCACY related to menstrual leave, which is biasing the article towards a disease state rather than a normal biological process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove featured article status (edit on 8 March 2021: when I wrote this, I didn't understand how the process worked and that there was plenty of time to improve things before deciding). EMsmile (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Based on the discussions we are having on the talk page of menstrual cycle, it is very far from featured article status at this stage. We could bring it back up to featured article status eventually but it would take time. Does the process allow for such time? Probably not. Thus, bring it back down to "B" for now (?). Is that how the process works? EMsmile (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • EMsmile please have a look at the instructions at the WP:FAR page; Delist and Keep are not declared during the FAR phase. It is premature yet to say if Graham Beards or others (like Tom (LT)) might be able to salvage the article, and FAR is a deliberative process by design; the process allows as much time as needed, and sometimes it takes months to restore an article, but should Graham choose to work on the topic, he is more than capable of FA-level content. Also, to answer your other question, FAR does not re-assess the quality of articles (to B, C, GA, etc) if a Featured article is delisted— that is a separate process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's great. I was under the impression that it had to be decided quite "fast". If we have no particular deadline and we have people who are focusing on the FA-level content then all the better! EMsmile (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards is making considerable and steady progress here; it remains to be seen if he will be permitted to work at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, very good progress, but Graham needs at least another week to get hold of more sources. In the interim, some other editors (yep, buck up everyone!) might read through for jargon checking. Y’all know who I’m looking at! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to review and be pinged when Graham's ready. Kudos to Graham for improving the article. At this current point the 'other animals' and 'society and culture' sections remain quite short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT) the section "society and culture" is short on purpose because we want readers to know that they can click through to other existing articles which cover that in great depth. And by the way, I don't think we should say there "further" but "main" and link them to menstruation#Society and culture. We certainly don't need detailed information here when the detailed information exists in a related Wikipedia article. Just key terms so that people get a rough idea. EMsmile (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how articles, or FAs, are written, nor is that how the article has been edited. The Society and culture section is short because there is nothing else to say, so far.
Please review WP:SS for how to use hatnotes. This article cannot be a main summary of content at menstruation because this article is about the reproductive cycle; there need not be a hatnote at all (just a link), since most of the content in the sub-articles is unrelated to the topic of this article, upon which we should stay tightly focused. The criteria for featured articles are outlined at WP:WIAFA; we don’t decide what to include or not in an article based on what we hope or think readers will click on, and the article is not being edited “to give people a rough idea”; if there is anything else to say about a biological process that is covered in high quality sources, it hasn’t been produced yet.
The section is short because high quality sources offer little. A good deal of UNDUE and poorly sourced content was removed, but remains in the sub-articles. If readers are clicking through to poorly sourced sub-articles, that is outside of the remit of *this* Featured article, which so far summarizes only information that is well sourced, on topic, not UNDUE, and not published in predatory journals (such content was removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): A number of editors are confused between a subset of the entire reproductive cycle (menses or menstruation) and what this article is about which is the overall reproductive cycle in females. Your assistance in sorting out the issues from an anatomy standpoint would be helpful; some editors want this article to be about menstruation rather than the entire cycle, of which menses is one small part, and if we have to merge in the poorly written, poorly organized and poorly sourced content from menstruation, we have a C-class article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the menstruation article should be seen as a "subset" of menstrual cycle at all! You are looking at it purely from a biological standpoint. I look at it from a woman's life & society standpoint. In my view the article menstruation should be broad and overarching, it covers a range of topics, and looks at menstruation from different angles, including how women feel, how they deal with it, how society looks on it etc. For me the menstrual cycle article is a "smaller" more narrow article that is purely focused on what exactly which hormone does at which point of the cycle, so purely medical/biological/anatomical - whichever you want to call it. Therefore, it does NOT need a section on "society and culture". That belongs to menstruation (I would still argue to link the two articles clearly together; to me they belong together like a jigsaw puzzle; but I guess this whole notion that one will be FA quality whereas the other will be C quality gets in the way). - I still think merging them together might solve some of the problems. EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Menstrual cycle uses summary style correctly to cover multiple phases of the reproductive cycle; these include the follicular phase, ovulation, ovarian cycle, the luteal phase and many others. Menstruation is one part, among those many others, all of which are summarized. Whatever the quality assessment of any of those other articles is, *this* article has to meet WP:WIAFA, which so far it is.
What the menstruation article should be (or any of the many sub-topics) is not in the remit of this review; it is one of many sub-articles. In terms of which hatnote to use, when an article is not using WP:SS to summarize the entire contents of another article, further is more appropriate than main.
The approach to this article is not “purely” anatomical, biological or medical; it is, as it should be, based on sources. The entire reproductive cycle is not menstruation, and menstruation, like every subset of the entire topic, has its own article. Some of the desires expressed on talk to bring in off-topic material from menstruation (but not from follicular phase, luteal phase, ovulation, or anything else) appear to be driven by issues beyond this article. Menstrual cycle is the broad topic, not the narrower one; it encompasses the entire reproductive cycle, of which menstruation (as all the other sub-articles) are subsets.
The purpose for and work on this page is about menstrual cycle, not the sub-articles, and whether this article meets WP:WIAFA, which it will and does as long as Graham is permitted to finish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, I can see I have stirred up a hornet's nest here. I wasn't aware of mensturation but I did find the (now absent) two sentence society and culture section jarring (my opinion is either include as a summary style paragraph or not at all, but that the very brief sentences were quite jarring). Please ping me when Graham's done and I will have a look. As he's still editing I think it may be somewhat annoying for me to review as he goes things that he may already plan to edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tom (LT): There is another book on its way to me by snail mail, but I doubt if I will need it. So, when you have time could you comment? Perhaps the article Talk Page would be the best venue as that's where most of the discussions are underway. Thank.Graham Beards (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, jargon review time:. The article has been considerably reworked (heavy lifting by Graham); see the article talk page. [2]. It would be very helpful to get layperson feedback on the prose at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very bare-bones, but maybe that's ideal for keeping the cruft out. Seems reasonably understandable to this fairly educated but non-expert reader. (t · c) buidhe 19:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It covers everything you would expert to see in a standard (expensive) textbook.Graham Beards (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe a couple of days to correct the article and find WP:MEDRS sources. Graham Beards (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress is slow but steady, still waiting for external expert review to wrap up (which has been very helpful), and need at least another few weeks, probably two or three. This has been a fortuitous two-fer: a Featured article review and an external expert peer review combined, thanks to Clayoquot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is the progress looking?Blue Jay (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work is close to wrapping up now if others would like to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close without FARC, a very nice save, mostly thanks to the effort by Graham Beards, who took the lead in restoring this to featured status. Tom (LT) reviewed the anatomy, WhatamIdoing and Colin helped review the medical content, and Clayoquot was instrumental in securing an external peer review by content-area experts, and Femkemilene kept a helpful and watchful eye. A fine effort and a fine save at FAR (let’s see more of same for other medical FAs!!!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, important save! FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, a example of teamwork at its best. Graham Beards (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC the amount of improvement that was done here is incredible. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [3].

War of the Fifth Coalition edit

Notified: UberCryxic, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history, 2021-02-04

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is unreferenced information, an unaddressed Austro-centric concern raised on the talk page in May 2020, and a need for a copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Original concerns

For reference, I've pasted Z1720's concerns on the talk page below - Dumelow (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many paragraphs and sections do not have citations.
  • The lede needs to be reformatted to remove the short paragraphs and ensure it summarizes the major parts of the article.
  • There are concerns above about the POV being Austro-centric. Has this been resolved?
  • There jargon in this image caption: "to throw off the yoke of Napoleon's Bavarian allies"
  • The article could use a copy-edit. I recommend this happens after all the information has been verified (as this process might cause the prose to change or new information be added)
  • Ref 15 cites 23 pages. Is there a way to narrow this down?
Background section and infobox

My feeling is that the background section is overly long and could do with trimming down to the key points - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should merge the background of Austria into single one, and add up some other countries' background such as UK, Sardinia and others. And, I think Third Coalition is not necessary here, because this war is after fourth coalition. Also, as you said, this article is mainly about battle between Austria and France, which is not containing all the battles. What about course of Peninsular War or Wars in Poland, or the rebellion in Tyrol? That should not be described as other theatres, because it is interwined with Austro-France battles. -- Wendylove (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the background, please feel free to have a go at reducing it or I may do later on. With regards the main content, we'll have to check consensus in the sources but I'd consider the War of the Fifth Coalition to be largely a Franco-Austrian matter, with the exception of the Walcheren Expedition and the Tyrol revolt. I'd also consider the Peninsular War to sit outside the coalition wars (starting before and continuing after) and indeed our article on the Napoleonic Wars treats it as such. We should mention it but not focus on it, I think. I'm also not clear on the involvement of Sardinia and Sicily in the Fifth Coalition, they are mentioned in the infobox but not the article? - Dumelow (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a passage in Mikaberidze (2020) which discusses the formal coalition members (Austria, Britain, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia) but notes the last four played a "rather nominal" role. I've tried to elaborate on this in footnotes in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should retain something about the war of the third coalition. The fifth was fought primarily between France and Austria, and the last time those two had come to blows was the third - Austria having not taken part in the fourth coalition. Part of their motivation for waging war in 1809 was to avenge the beating they had in 1805. Chuntuk (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is quite pinch to my opinion, and I think you're right! -- Wendylove (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, about Sicily and Sardinia, they are not belligerents of 1809 war. If you take a look at Coalition Wars#Coalition parties and Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies#Third Coalition, they are not main parties. I think we should change Coalition Wars#Coalition parties too. And in other languages' article, such as French and Italian, they put Sardinia and Sicily as well, but there is no references for it. (Italian article has references, which says 'Solo formalmente parte dell'alleanza, in realtà non coinvolto nelle operazioni militari') .-- Wendylove (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed Portugal, Spain, Sicily and Sardinia from the infobox and cut back the result to "French Victory Treaty of Schönbrunn" per the guidance - Dumelow (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started on hacking back the background, only got down to the 4th coalition so far. Will continue, but probably tomorrow. If anyone else wants to continue, please feel free - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some more back. This will also need a judicious ce to get rid of editorializing --phrasing like "the French mauled their Russian opponents" is rife. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... or not Eddie891 Talk Work 02:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I merged backgrounds of Austria by now, and I put Spain and Portugal again, but I mentioned Peninsular War, making Spanish war and Austrian War separate. Also, I will add up some Spainsh and Potugal generals. --- 03:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I've cut most of it and added a little about the part played by the Austrian minister Stadion. I'm still plodding through (with others) and adding refs, the background is almost fully cited now- Dumelow (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also get the general impression from my source that the article underplays the extent of Britains involvement. How would people feel about a paragraph or so on background about them? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also: How sure are we that all sources agree portugal was not a member of the coalition? this says they are Eddie891 Talk Work 15:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Chandler (1994) has Spain and Portugal as "associated" with the coalition (whose members he gives as only Britain and Austria). Lachouque (1961) lists Austria, England, Spain and Portugal as members. I'll add them back as members with a citation to Lachouque - Dumelow (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think substantial sections on the background and the lead up to the war are important things to keep in the article - because they won't appear anything else. The actual events of the war - the big battles - have substantial articles of their own so don't need too much text here. The causes and consequences are only going to be dealt with here. I'm about to go away for the weekend, so can't do anything, but I thought I'd share that perspective. I'm also doing some digging on the "fifth coalition:" whether that term was actually used at the time, or applied in retrospect by later historians. Could help us nail down the membership! Chuntuk (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, most of the background that's been trimmed so far belongs in the prior wars of the coalitions and the Peninsular war article... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added: Maybe an approach to consider would be to show the pre-war positions of each of the great powers - Austria, Britain, France, Prussia, Russia (one paragraph each) - followed by one or two paragraphs on the rest: Spain, Portugal, Confederation of the Rhine. One of the themes we ought to be developing is the increased role for Napoleon's allies in this war, because a lot of his French troops were committed in Spain. That's one of the factors that encouraged the Austrians to make war in the first place. Chuntuk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What does Gill say about Francis's decision for war? (our article has " Stadion remained hopeful of Prussian support and on 8 February 1809 persuaded Emperor Francis I") Esdaile says "on 23 December [1808] the increasingly desperate Francis resolved on war." Eddie891 Talk Work 01:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gill has "It was in this charged atmosphere that the monarchy's principal leaders gathered on 8 February to deliberate once more the question of war. Stadion apparently dominated this conference, painting Austria's situation in brightly optimistic colours and again persuading the Kaiser and Charles that Napoleon's preoccupation with Spain presented a brilliant but fleeting opportunity for success". He goes on to reference Francis' earlier December decision, but the Google preview doesn't have that page for me. I'll see if I can find anything about December elsewhere - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a bit in Gill 2020 discussing the matter, he says the December decision was "tentative" and the final approval came in February. I've tried to clarify this in the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get why we need a whole section here on the Peninsular war. I think a sentence or two in background is enough... Eddie891 Talk Work 01:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Peninsular War is a separate conflict that started before and ended after this war. Beyond a basic description of its impact on this war anything on the Iberian peninsula belongs in that article, not this one - Dumelow (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I think the Austrian section (while all relevant background) might benefit from splitting into a sub section or two. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
  • I have ISBN 9780203209745 and can see if there's anything worth adding shortly. It looks as though someone may need to track down sources like ISBN 1446448762 though not sure. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been through and tidied up all the existing references to use sfn or harvnb templates, it's not my preferred method but the least disruptive to what was already there. It seems to me we might be leaning rather heavily on Chandler, which is over 50 years old now, but is probably OK for this kind of overview. I've added Gill's more recent three volumes on the 1809 campaign to the list of sources (they're probably the definitive work on the subject) - I'll see if I can tick off some of those "citations needed" with it. Chuntuk (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Found a bit of time to get stuck into the sourcing. Everything's now sourced down to Wagram and I'll try to keep going with the remainder. I've struck out some of the original items raised as concerns as they have been addressed. Once we've added in a bit more about the German rebellions and naval actions I think the Austro-centrism will be dealt with also - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About other participants .

By my view, it is very odd to divide participants by major and other, because none of the other articles of Coalition wars (First to Seventh) divide countries. I think it is better to put countries all together, and we should avoid verifying each country to participate or not. By the way, there is an effort to delete Portugal from main participants, but this is quite controversial. If we are going to cover Peninsular War in this article, then we should put Portugal as one of the main participants, because it was one of the major participants in Peninsular War. The Peninsular War 1807 – 1814, A Concise Military History by Michael Glover or The Peninsular War by Charles Esdaile can be a good resources for that. While Sicily and Sardinia didn't have any battles with French at that time (which should be reviewed with other materials as well), Portugal saw combats during 1809. -- Wendylove (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

course of war (Austro-centric)

Although it is a war between mainly Austria and French, I think we can rearrange Austrian section into one, and make "Other theatres" into appropriate poisition. After all, I think Holland, Poland, and Italy and Dalmatia section can be put into Austrian section, and I think we can cover up Peninsular War and Andreas Hofer's rebellion into one independent paragraph. I'll try it first, and if there is any problem, pls remind me. --- 15:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Rebellion among Germans

Can we find some resources about Tyrol Rebellion, 1809 Gotscheer Rebellion, or Andrea's Rebellion? If we find resources, we can expand article. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is now cited. Next job is to expand the non-Austrian sections a little (Germany and the naval battles), sort out the lead and then a copyedit and it will hopefully be passable - Dumelow (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone who has been improving this article. Please ping me when the edits are complete and I will reassess the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've finished expanding everything non-Austrian now. I've also rewritten the lead (though this may be a bit long now). Would someone mind copyediting the article? - Dumelow (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a copyedit from me, but I do have a comment. The section Peninsular War opens up rather abruptly with "Unhappy after Portugal reopened trade with Britain" (we do not discuss the Continental System anywhere before and the link to Peninsular War#1809 does not explain it further). Is it possible to expand a bit to explain that Britain was under a comercial embargo at the time? (if sources mention it?) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RetiredDuke, I've rewritten these sentences, hopefully it is better now - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the context. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow: I am a non-expert in this subject. Do you want me to complete the copyedit or are you looking for someone with more topic-knowledge? Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely a need for copy editing - the very first sentence I glanced at in the article was "Massena launched a costly frontal attack that captured the position on 3 May; Hiller withdrawing along the Danube" which changes tense at the semicolon. I would be willing to do one except that I'm a horrible copyeditor, as anyone who's ever reviewed my GAN or ACR noms can probably attest to. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, a copyedit from yourself would be most welcome. In a way it may even be better that somebody without knowledge of the topic goes through the article. I've been editing it very piecemeal and much is unchanged from the original (particularly in the "Austria-Bavaria front" and "Aftermath" sections). I'll try to have a read through today to check for any obvious errors but if you pick anything up please note it here so it can be addressed. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a copyedit of the article, but I want to do another one at a later date. Please review and revert any changes that are unhelpful. I posted questions on the article's talk page that I hope others can clarify there and fix in the article. Could someone review the sources to make sure they are high-quality and correctly formatted? Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a single source reliability question, and will post some source formatting comments soon. Who is Robert Burnham, and is his contribution to The Napoleon Series (ref 2) going to be considered high-quality RS? Hog Farm Talk 02:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I think previous edition look better because this edit looks similar to the original one, which looked so disperse. What I mention is not about cite or references, but order of paragraphs. Is there any reason for putting order of paragraph back to the original one? -- Wendylove (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting comments
  • Don't think Bruce needs an accessdate; they generally aren't given for books as far as I know
  • Henderson needs a location
  • Johnson needs a location
  • Does Lachouque have an OCLC?
  • We have a ref to Gardiner p. 75, but no source by a Gardiner

Sources look fine otherwise aside from this and the question about Burnham above, no spot checks done. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, I've replaced Burnham with a citation to Mikaberidze. Added locations for Henderson and Johnson and an OCLC for Lachouque. Wendylove, you added the reference to Gardiner here, could you add the source to the bibliography? - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a second and third copyedit to the article. There are two concerns I hope other editors can help me address: 1) There's some dup linking in the article, but I think some of it is justified because of the amount of text between the links. Can a more experienced reviewer look at the dup links and remove the ones that are not necessary. 2) There's a Further Reading section. I think the article is well researched but some editors on FACs have opposed FAs due to this list. Should we keep this list? Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading is generally only an issue if there is so much further reading that it indicates that the article does not comprehensively use sources. This doesn't seem to be the case here, and two of the further reading sources are by Gill, multiple of whose works are already cited. So I think the further reading is fine. I did remove one web source that doesn't really add anything. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one duplink, but I think the others are spread out enough it's not horrible. Will do a complete read-through later; I anticipate that this can be closed without FARC. The no target ref to Gardiner is the only main issue I'm aware of, and it's not that major. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep your dashes in order (done).
  • Missing author: The British Expeditionary Force to Walcheren: 1809 The Napoleon Series, Retrieved 5 September 2006.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Dumelow: - It looks like that source Sandy linked above is also by Burnham, so it'll either need replaced or we'll need to determine what Burnham's credentials are. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm, didn't spot that one. Now replaced. I've got a book coming that might allow me to replace the elusive Gardiner too - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've sorted the Gardiner ref now. Unless there's any other issues that have not yet been brought up, I am hoping this can now be reviewed as acceptable - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on read-throughs
  • "A French invaded Poland in November, where Russian forces were stationed, and occupied Warsaw" - missing a word
  • " The same day the Convention of Paris imposed heavy reparations upon Prussia," - Probably need a brief gloss of what the Convention of Paris was somewhere, as this is the only mention
I've tried to expand on this, strange we don't have an article on it. I guess it is more of an afterthought to Tilsit - Dumelow (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French suffered heavy losses, around 32,000 men, with their commanders particularly affected as around 40 French generals were killed and wounded." - Are Austrian casualties known to compare this to?
Added - Dumelow (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the commanders are only mentioned in the infobox: Maximillian, Frederick Augustus, Erker, the three from Portugal, Ferdinand VII, Alava, Blake, Perceval, and the Duke of Portland
Good point. I think everyone is now named or trimmed - Dumelow (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of Habsburg/Hapsburg is inconsistent
Standardised to Habsburg - Dumelow (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Metternich and Charles succeeded in negotiating lighter terms in return for Austrian co-operation, most of the hereditary Hapsburg territories were preserved" - Are we sure that "although" is the best word? Because wouldn't lighter terms for Austria go along with preserving the Habsburg territories?

That's about all I see that needs done yet here. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed two of HF's concerns. The others require more knowledgeable people than me. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not particularly an expert on this exact conflict, but I think this is good to be closed without FARC, as it looks like everything brought up in the FAR has been fixed. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC I reviewed the article again and my concerns have all been addressed. I am not an expert in anything Napoleon or MilHist related, but I could easily understand the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed edit

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) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [5].

Bricker Amendment edit

Notified: PedanticallySpeaking, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Conservatism, WikiProject United States Government, talk page 2021-03-11

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article (2006 promotion) for review because its sources are not adequate under 1c. The main issue is an overdependence on primary sources. Primary sources are not "high-quality", and WP:PRIMARY restricts their usage to clear and incontrovertible statements of fact. That's not happening here. Much of the "legal background" section consists only of citations to court cases and statutes, meaning that statements of analysis (e.g. The precedent most often cited by critics of "treaty law" was Missouri v. Holland) are effectively uncited. This happens throughout the article: citations to laws, treaties, legal disputes, and contemporaneous writings are all too common. In addition, there are about half a dozen citation needed tags. While I'd ordinarily be inclined to just fix it myself, I fear the pervasive use of primary sources could only be remedied by a substantial reworking of the article. Since the article hasn't been edited once since I gave notice, I don't think that there's a community of editors prepared to do that. (This is my first FAR, so kindly excuse any procedural errors on my part.) Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro
  • While I see zero reason for the overwhelming bigotry against primary sources that are in FA discussions ("Primary sources are not "high-quality"" is a loaded statement. I know the internet has allowed a lot of self-written blogs that's made us have to determine what's what, but just because a source is primary doesn't mean it's unreliable or not high-quality. In fact, in some cases I would fail an article for comprehensiveness if it didn't include certain details from primary sources), but there is analysis not in those primary sources, I agree secondary sources are required for those. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've stricken the "not high-quality" line - it was an overgeneralization. I don't object to the use of primary sources if it is compliant with WP:PRIMARY. In this case, as you note, the use of primary sources goes far beyond "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts", and so all sorts of sourcing and OR issues arise. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - the article hasn't been edited a single time since this FAR was initiated. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - missing citations and possible OR issues with use of primary sources. Hog Farm Talk 05:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - No edits since notice was placed on talk page in early March. Z1720 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - sourcing and OR concerns. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for the reasons explained in my original FAR nomination, none of which have been dealt with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2021 (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) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [6].

Fauna of Puerto Rico edit

Notified: Joelr31, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Animals, 2021-02-25 notification

Review section edit

This FA, which has not been reviewed since late 2006, contains large quantities of uncited text as well as a large number of 10-year-old statistics that need checked for currency. Currently does not meet WP:WIAFA. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - still no engagement. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - seriously undercited; no substantial edits in months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - No major edits since notice was placed in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - significant issues. Only edits in 2021 are to correct links. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements, exceptional claims and words to watch, such as 'failure', 'believed to be', 'important', 'possible explanation', 'enhanced', 'national pride', 'common phrase', 'fundamental', and 'have contributed'. DrKay (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2021 (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) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [7].

Grunge edit

Notified: OnBeyondZebrax, WikiProject Music, WP Alternative music, diff

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the quotes disrupt nice flow of prose, inconsistent referencing (including bare urls), and lacking page numbers, as laid out by RetiredDuke. I really hope that this important article is saved :). Not notifying editor without edits after 2013. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RD
Oh God, I was hoping this wouldn't come here, but seems like nobody picked it up. I think that the article has become bloated due to the number of quotes, particularly on the "Clothing and fashion", "Alcohol and drugs" and "Legacy" sections. Just as an example, House stated that there was "... no more (heroin) here [in Seattle] than anyplace else"; he stated that the "heroin is not a big part of the [Seattle music] culture", and that "marijuana and alcohol ... are far more prevalent" - 3 quotes in a single sentence, and most of it can be paraphrased since it's nothing groundbreaking anyway. I think this article needs a significant trim by someone knowledgeable, but I'd like to hear other opinions. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro

So many blatant issues, including those mentioned above.

  • Original FA nomination was from 2007, so it's another article promoted to FA when standards were far lower and there was much less access to print sources on the subject.
  • The 2007 FA nominator has not been active since 2012, only having one edit in 2013.
  • The lead is missing summary of some key factors of this genre, particularly the clothing and fashion and use of alcohol and drugs associated with it as while as the overwhelming involvement of women, unusual in comparison to other rock genres.
  • The History section needs to be split into its own article, and there needs to be more subsections within History to divide already insanely-long subsections
  • "Grunge appeared as a trend again in 2008, and for Fall/Winter 2013,"
    • (1) Citation for grunge being a fashion trend in 2008? Found it nowhere in any of the citations in this subsection?
    • (2) Why are we so extensively talking about fashion collections Courtney Love encountered?
  • "With Courtney Love as his muse for the collection, she reportedly loved the collection." Repetitive prose.
  • Why is "bass guitar" section just a few disparate instances of how bass was incorporated? There doesn't seem to be a consistent grunge-style bass here, which doesn't justify the section.
  • Why aren't the album names of the Neil Young img caption italicized?
  • Several citations are incorrectly formatted and incomplete.
  • Bare URLs are unacceptable even for good articles.
  • Inconsistent cite formatting, as some book cites are fully presented in the footnotes are others are cited the Harvard way where you only give the last name and page number and have to go to a separate "works cited" list to see the full source.
  • Our first cite (which is for one of the genre origins of Grunge) cites an autobio that isn't mainly about grunge. Shouldn't we have professional music journalists' pieces primarily about Grunge cite origins?
  • Ref 21. Incomplete citation, and are we sure WatchMojo owns the TV interview cited? If not, we have a mighty WP:COPYLINK problem on our hands.
  • Ref 110 is a WP:COPYLINK-violating Dailymotion source.
  • Ref 140 is a Blogspot source.
  • Ref 178. (1) AllMusic is not a work. (2) I don't think that's how you format titles of AllMusic source
  • So many more cite formatting problems I could bring up, but I'd say to look at it yourself. You'll find more of them in a flash.

This is in severe need of cleanup. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, no engagement, no improvement. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Not much happening, much needs to happen. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Lots of work needed to be FA quality. Unfortuantely there's been limited engagement. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include citations, organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Significant issues, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 05:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced paragraphs, including words to watch such as 'typical', 'preferred', 'polished', 'unique', 'key figure', 'most successful', and 'notable'. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, uncited text, bare URLs, poor sources, inconsistent citations, and the article does not adequately use summary style to avoid excessive detail and length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I warned the editors who frequent this article over two years ago that an FA review was long overdue. Uncited text, un-WP:RELIABLE sources, dubious sources, media articles reporting rumours - rumours have no place in an FA - and use of sourcing to direct readers to a WP:POV without discussion of other points of view. The style and instruments used by a few bands have been generalised to represent the entire genre, which they do not. William Harris (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2021 (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) 01:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [9].

Rhodes blood libel edit

Notified: Beit Or, WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Ottoman Empire, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject History, WikiProject Religion, diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, the article mostly cites just one source, while there are several other scholarly sources that cover the incident. Thus, it cannot be considered well-researched or comprehensive according to the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 12:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HumanxAnthro
  • I will say, in looking on the bright side, that the prose does establish all necessary concepts in a way the reader could understand and in proper order, although there are oddly-formatted sentences, and those that could be formatted better, here and there. "After an epidemic of plague in 1498–1500," "expelled those of the remaining Jews who would not be baptized." "deeply ingrained in the consciousness of some local Christian communities by the early 20th century while the blood libel likely came there in the early 19th century ." It definitely shows the writers of the article did keep in mind how a new reader would understand it, and with more sources represented and some more prose copyedits, this has got a chance of being FA. Plus, I think it's essential to get it to that quality given how under-represented the history of marginalization and oppression of Jews are in history classes. It didn't start with Nazi Germany, and it would be great for articles like this to become high-quality so more readers know that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement, heavy reliance on one source, others neglected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC No major edits since notice was placed on talk page in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Overreliance on Frankel and not using other available sources means that this fails WP:FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no engagement since my last comment, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 21 April 2021 (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) 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC) [10].

Geology of the Death Valley area edit

Notified: Mav, WikiProject California, WikiProject Geology, 2020-11-23

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are significant unsourced parts in the article. The parts that are sourced rely mostly on pre-2000 books, including for statements such as Debate still surrounds the cause of (Collier, 1990). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A major omission is any mention of the Walker Lane, which it is part of, and any discussion of a change from dominant extension to left lateral strike-slip combined with extension over the last few million years as part of this proposed incipient plate boundary. It's in Death Valley#Geology, but not in this longer article. Mikenorton (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - Additional issues brought up during FAR stage, and no work done yet. Hog Farm Talk 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to update at least part of the article when I get sufficient time to do the rewrite justice - I'm quite busy right now. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, perhaps can be brought back to FAC when re-written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still at Delist; there is still considerable (albeit untagged) uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, excessive image captions, and I don't believe a job of this size and this late in the game is attainable at FAR. If the article is brought to standard, it can be resubmitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Work has begun, and improvements are being made. Hog Farm Talk 01:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this article requires an almost complete rewrite. For instance, there is a table of salts sourced to a 1966 paper, whose relevancy should be included, and that should be updated completely. At the current pace, it would take half year to save this article I believe, so that a new FAC would be more appropriate. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delist - There's work going on this, but the progress is intermittent and a lot is needed. Probably best to rewrite this outside of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 00:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mikenorton: What's your timeline with regards to updating? Do you feel that the issues raised can be addressed within the timeframe of this review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I've made a start on this, but found that although Collier (1990) is mostly out of date, I can't find any sources that give a good overview of more recent developments in the understanding of the geology. There's no shortage of material, but it's hard to rewrite parts of it without straying into WP:SYN of WP:OR territory. It's best I think to let this lapse for now unless anyone else want to have a go. Maybe I'll come back to this and think of an effective way forward, but I'm struggling right now. I will try and at least remove the contradictory parts created by my recent additions. Mikenorton (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2021 (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) 01:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [11].

Talbot Tagora edit

Notified: no editors even remotely active here to notify, WP Autos, WP Brands, talk page notice 2013-05-16

Review section edit

This is a 2006 FA last reviewed in 2009 whose main contributor has not edited since 2006. The article is listy; there is uncited text, including direct quotes, throughout; there are incomplete citations and bare URLs; there are sources of dubious reliability, and it appears the article has not been maintained since its last review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support accelerated process Only 22 sources, not all reliable. Seems underlinked. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support accelerated process per Femke, Hog Farm and sources not incorporated per RetiredDuke (unlikely that anyone will take this on, and if they do, moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HumanxAnthro

The FA nominator of this article responded to the previous time this was nominated for FA review, stating this is the most comprehensive article that could be written and that those were the best-quality sources available. Here's a quote of his response.

"I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance. As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say."

Anybody believe them? 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this appears to be one of those subjects that will just be very difficult to bring to FAC, due to the obscurity of most of the sources. A Google Books search suggests that this car has been written about, but just in primarily offline or otherwise not easily accessible sources. Snippet views for Google books suggest that [12], [13], [14], [15], etc. With the snippet view, I can see very little about these sources, so it is hard to truly judge. I just think that this is one of those subjects where there is RS coverage available, but it is just all stuff that is very difficult to access. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had a bit more luck in finding sources, in some motor magazines:
I don't know much about cars though, so I can't be of much help here. (I also found out that there is/was a band with that name, which I found funny.) RetiredDuke (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Pitchfork's talking about that band, of course we have to do a wiki on it. XD 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth this article still appears to be of a far better quality than most car articles on Wikipedia; which is to say that it's not a WP:JARGON filled mess. Perhaps the Pitchfork article mentioned prior could be used as a reference somewhere in this article to talk about the car's cultural impact? There certainly seem to be sources available that could help get this article up to the highest standards it could be at. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is nicely written, but its sources are underwhelming and it lacks a description of the car – how would I know whether the car's design was good/average/bad if the tiny description pieces just tell me that is has a MacPherson front suspension and came with three engine options? A featured article on a car (or other vehicle) must include a decent description of how the car works. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "how a car works" is very subjective; such editorializing is commonly removed from automobile articles. One reviewer loves the handling and another one hates it. Someone finds the seats comfortable and another one thinks they are just okay. Also, is it not possible to have an FA with mainly older, off-line references? Seems very limiting. Anyhow, FA or not is not super important to me.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support accelerated process unless somebody steps up soon. This one is far from complete per Johannes above, and the sourcing is deficient, as noted above with the list of sources. This would likely need a top-to-bottom rewrite to get back up to the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 16:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Far to go, no engagement. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (accelerated) - A long ways from this, as it is far from complete or a good sweep of the RS. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no significant work since article was noticed on its talk page. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2021 (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) 02:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [16].

300 (film) edit

Notified: Mercenary2k, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, 2020-12-15

Review section edit

Fun fact: every section in the article's source starts with a hidden warning: "ATTENTION! PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING! Please present potential changes to this section in the Discussion area prior to making them, as consensus has been reached on a number of issues that tend to be repeated here." Apparently there hasn't been consensus on how to keep its featured article quality more than 10 years after it was promoted.

The not-retired RetiredDuke brought up many problems with this article on its talk page three months ago, and although many edits have been made since then, none of them addressed the problems. No representation from academic literature, statements un-cited or using questionable sources, the prose of the "Iranian criticism" section is not organized well, the plot section is 12 words too long, and the reception section is a quote-farm of 1% of all critical reviews of this movie. Also, I think it's fair to assume some sections of an article about such a big production (reception, production for example) are incomplete. I wouldn't even promote this article to "This is Sparta" status due to its many issues... That joke should tell you the current quality of this article. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This article was promoted 8 months after the movie was released for the first time (at a film marathon), and just 5 months after it hit the theaters in March 2007. I don't think anyone at the time was anticipating what a behemoth it would become in popular culture, and I'm of the opinion that the article does not reflect the continued coverage the movie got in academic sources, for instance. The Iranian criticism subsection could be cut in half, and I've highlighted some unreliable sources in Talk. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article does happen to be delisted, I'd be happy to read the academic literature online and find more via Google Scholar. I'm really interested in doing it cause it's got feminine men and meme-worthy material aplenty ;) I'm working on a themes section (or article if there's enough info) for the Paranormal Activity film series, which will probably train me in doing the same for 300 and its lesser known 2014 sequel. As it stands, though, RetirdDuke is right. HumanxAnthro (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

I have doubts about the reliability of the following sources:

  • About.com
  • Comics2Film.com
  • Broken Frontier
  • Avatar Movie Zone
  • SuperHeroHype.com
  • What is Movie Wave?
  • What is Music on Film?
  • 300onDVD.com
  • I think we can find a better source for the description of the real battle of Thermopylae than unsupported referencing to Herodotus
  • Axccess News
  • What in the world is the reference that is just "300 wows Sparta home crowd despite some critics' complaints"."
  • Comingsoon.net
  • CanMag
  • What is AfterElton.com
  • What is How to Split an Atom
  • What is backwardfive.com
  • What is moviepilot.com

Some of these could well be reliable (I'm not familiar with most of them), but these generally look like non-ideal sources. I get the strong impression from looking at the sourcing of this article that it relies on dodgy web sources way too much when there is academic literature about this topic. Hog Farm Talk 22:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - Only real work that has occurred is some referencing formatting fixes, which doesn't solve the very significant sourcing issues. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Concerns over criterion 1c: high-quality reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist does not meet the current FA criteria with many issues and those are unaddressed, such as high-quality sources and bad prose. Chompy Ace 09:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Some removal of uncited text did occur, but the overuse of questionable sources and underuse of scholarly sources remains. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 12 April 2021 (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) 02:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [17].

Privilege of peerage edit

Notified: DrKay, WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, 2020-10-25

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has been tagged as non-comprehensive since 2017, missing information about historical privileges. One of the sections consists mostly of overly long quotes, as detailed by buidhe. Original nominator/(?)writer not active since 2006. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist necessary improvements not happening. (t · c) buidhe 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements since January 2021 and as needing expansion for over 4 years. DrKay (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Nothing happening. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Nothing happening, lots of work needed. Hog Farm Talk 13:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No significant improvements since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – The required changes aren't being made. 24.77.42.223 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2021 (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) 02:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC) [18].

War against Nabis edit

Notified: Kyriakos, Wandalstouring, Robth, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Greece, WP MILHIST, WP Rome, 2021-02-22

Review section edit

While this one looks fine on the surface, it relies very heavily on largely unsupported referencing to two problematic sources. Livy is an ancient primary source who is used often alone without anything to support it, and Smith 1873 is also used heavily and mainly unsupported and is a pretty dated source. With such a heavy reliance on Livy and Smith, this one doesn't meet WP:FACR 1c. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues in the review section focus on sourcing. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Poor sourcing, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 05:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this could likely be semi-accelerated 10-day close if nobody steps up soon. There's no engagement at all and there seems to be consensus this needs a heavy rewrite. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I don't think that an FA should rely this much on an ancient source, uncritically. Livy is a primary source and the use of his works should be put in context, with the use of modern, secondary sources. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - uncritical reliance on Greco-Roman-period sources raises substantial sourcing issues. Citations to modern scholarly perspectives are a must when one is dealing with Polybius, Livy, etc. Otherwise, problems with OR and due weight inevitably result, as they have here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A common reason given for delisting is the significant reliance on primary sources. Does an FA have to avoid the use of primary sources, or is it more nuanced than that? I'd be grateful to someone who could clarify this for me. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." - That is policy for Wikipedia articles in general, but Featured Articles require better sourcing than that. Mercenary War and First Punic War are examples of how to write about Ancient topics without citing Ancient sources directly. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC) [19].

Super Mario 64 edit

Notified: Guyinblack25, WikiProject video games (plus the project's Nintendo task force), 2021-03-03

Review section edit

Super Mario 64 is an article that was promoted to FA status in 2008.... and man did it not maintain that status. The 2008 FA nominator hasn't made a single edit to the article since nearly ten years ago, and although other users have added info and content, it's not enough to keep this article FA quality. I brought up the many, many issues with this article on the talk page, with a couple of users initially considering interest in moving it back to FA quality. However, they lost interest days later due to a lack of time, so I'm taking this to featured article review.

You can go to the article's talk page for more specific details on its problems, but to put it simply, it is horribly incomplete (there's nothing about its f---ing E3 coverage, for crying out loud), disorganized and hard to navigate (at least its Reception section is), not representative of academic and scholarly literature and many contemporaneous publication opinions (even IGN's 1996 review is only mentioned for its score), has parts with a majority of their citations being unverifiable, and has so many quibbles with prose I couldn't summarize all of them simply.

If the discussion ends with the article being delisted, I'll be happy to look up the print reviews, do a lot of copyediting and (as a frequent player of Super Mario 64 and a fan of various Youtube videos about the topic) fix its gameplay section so that a lot of the most known parts of the gameplay are incorporated. As it stands, however, the article is in the red zone. HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HumanxAnthro did you read the WP:FAR instructions? Was there notice of a FAR needed more than one week ago? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the diff; notice was given 10 days ago. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering SM64's notoriety as a speed-game how much coverage can be added of that? This article became a featured article in the mid-2000s so there's presumably been a lot of recent developments in that area. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing comments
  • N-Sider is unreliable
  • I can't imagine that the YouTube channel of "Thomas Game Docs" is RS.
  • Destructoid is rather situational, is the author of that piece have good credentials?
  • There's got to be a better source than Dylan Cuthbert's tweet
    • Nominator for review here. Just so editors know their guidelines, I'm responding to this. I agree the article has several questionable sources, but this isn't one of them. WP:RSPTWITTER considers tweets reliable sources "if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way." The account is definitely verified and is of "lead developer on four Star Fox titles," which Star Fox is by the same company as Nintendo. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck. It's fine as a primary source. I wouldn't use it, but that's just a personal preference, not policy. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It may be an official account, but it’s still a marginal source for that kind of statement (we are taking the word of one individual who says they were an engineer on the project?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Silicon Investor" source is a forum message board
  • What is Ownt and what makes it high-quality RS?
  • While comicbook.com is listed as "other reliable" at WP:VGRS, the linked discussion actually calls that source to be on the fringe of reliability, which means that it ain't gonna be high-quality RS
  • What is sourcegaming.com and is it high-quality RS
  • The source "Nintendo SpaceWorld '96: Miyamoto Interview + Super Mario 64 on 64DD + Rumble Pak Unveiled." likely fails WP:COPYLINK.
  • Sources 99 through 103 are all random YouTube videos that probably fail COPYLINK and wouldn't be usable as sources anyway.
  • What makes ETeknix.com reliable?
  • We cite Nintendo Life several times; VGRS says for editorial content, author reliability is needed. So this needs watched out for, and is this even really a high-quality RS at all if the editorial content can be dodgy?

There seems to be a lot of issues with bad sources. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source that shows a live demo of SM64 during E3 1996. (https://www.destructoid.com/stories/this-live-demo-of-super-mario-64-is-an-amazing-retro-e3-moment-511570.phtml) Maybe we could use it? Blue Jay (talk) 02:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Destructoid is a little marginal if it qualifies as a reliable source, so we'll need to know if the author has good credentials. I'm not familiar enough with video games journalism to make that call here. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll go find other sources. Blue Jay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "Jordan is a founding member of Destructoid and poster of seemingly random pictures. They are anything but random." That's it. [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, so its unreliable? Blue Jay (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress? Blue Jay (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really need an update on progress, when the article is unchanged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Blue Jay (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When closing, for recordkeeping, this is a re-promoted FFA.
Not sure why you're asking me, but I support delist. Popcornfud (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is because we tried to improve the article during its FAR. In either case, as much as I hate to do this to a fun game I very much enjoy playing, I reluctantly say delist when it isn't comprehensive enough given the above comments. Sourcing doesn't seem as problematic at the moment. Hopefully someone can later get it back up to par after the review concludes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right. From my perspective I was just doing standard editing work at random, heh. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I saw you had worked on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, some work by Popcornfud and SNUGGUMS, but problems persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Improvements made, but problems still persist per above, as well as scattered things such as N-Sider still being used. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 7 April 2021 (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. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [21].

Guinea pig edit

Notified: Chubbles, UserTwoSix, WP Rodents, WP Mammals, WP Indigenous peoples, WP Agriculture, WP Genetics, WP Food and drink, WP Ecuador, WP Peru, 2020-11-25 talk page notification.

Review section edit

This is a 2007 FA that needs a tuneup to reflect current standards.
Noticed on 2020-11-25, the issues persist, including
  • uncited text,
  • WP:MEDRS citations needed,
  • WP:OVERLINKing,
  • checks needed for dated text (sample: the largest recorded litter size as of 2007 was 17),
  • inconsistent citation style (some use full dates while others use ISO, inconsistent author format eg Breeding and Reproduction of Guinea Pigs, Merck Veterinarian Manual, Katherine E. Quesenberry, DVM, MPH, DABVP (Avian) ; Kenneth R. Boschert, DVM, DACLAM, 2016. ... and while the article uses mostly short notes, some RP templates have been introduced for page nos)
  • a copyedit would not be remiss: samples, redundancy origin, originated (nor are they closely related biologically to pigs, and the origin of the name is still unclear. They originated in the Andes of South America), unnecessary use of continue, continuing in the lead, etc .. prose could be tighter.

Most of these do not appear to be issues that cannot be addressed at FAR if someone will take an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist as one of the major contributors to the initial push to bring this to FA, I no longer have the bandwidth to buff it up to current standards. Chubbles (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles, thanks for commenting. Fyi, we don't declare delist in the FAR phase (see instructions above), which is meant for improving the article. If improvements don't happen after two weeks, the article is typically moved to the FARC, where keep and delist are declared. As this an article has more than a million views a year, I'm hoping somebody else will step up. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone game to take it on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a glance, the main problem I see is also unsourced text. Other than that, it is possibly salvageable, but it needs some serious work to get it fully cited. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a bit more digging, trying to find WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for the medical statements. I struck out on what I was looking for, but came across enough information to make me concerned about the amount of work that would be needed to update the Scientific research section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have the energy or interest to tackle this. There are other old animal FAs I'd help out on but this one wouldn't be a priority. LittleJerry (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no sustained engagement or improvement since nomination. While I originally thought this would be a quick fixer-upper, my own research reveals this to be a complex topic and difficult to keep updated because guinea pigs are pets AND used for livestock AND used for research. A lot to cover, tough topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC there was a significant engagement in February, but this stopped in March. Issues such as missing citations need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, FemkeMilene (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced passages need footnotes from November 2020 and February 2021, cites unreliable sources from November 2020, tagged for update needed in March 2021. DrKay (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist citation needed, medical citation needed and better source needed tags need to be addressed, and there has not been recent progress on this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - lot of work, hopefully it'll be brought back at some point. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2021 (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) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 2:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC) [22].

Delrina edit

Notified: Captmondo, Computing, Companies, 2020-12-18

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as RetiredDuke indicated a few months ago, the article lacks citations in many places and has sub-optimal prose. Further problems may include overreliance on press releases, duplicate links, sandwiching. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from HumanxAnthro I'd add that the lead is a bit too short and some paragraphs in the "Delrina software and services" section are uncited. HumanxAnthro (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, zero engagement, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - nothing happening. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC No edits since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. DrKay (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Lot of work to do, nothing done yet. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - significant work needed, only edits in 2021 so far have been by bots. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - No significant edits since notice was placed on talk page. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2021 (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) 02:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [23].

Alain Prost edit

Notified: Koppite1, Leftism, Aprithvi, MWright96, 66.192.104.13, HoldenV8, WP Biography, WP Motorsport, WP Formula One, WP France, 2020-12-16

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion has issues with both the featured article criteria the BLP guidelines. There is substantial uncited text, as well as the use of blatantly unreliable sources such as "ecelebritymirror" and "ecelebrityspy". This article needs very substantial work to meet the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I decided not to notify the IP or HoldenV8. The IP is registered to a school, and HoldenV8 (and their sock) have been indeffed for years. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is not up to snuff. As noted by nominator some sources look unreliable and furthermore, the formatting of the sources section is inconsistent and hard to follow. That alone is going to be a major undertaking to resolve. The text needs a good CE as well; for example, some of the coverage of the dispute with Senna doesn't come across as neutral to me, and there are extensive dupe links. Coverage seems superficial with most seasons of his driving career, including his first championship winning season, only covered by a single paragraph (although I appreciate with his long F1 career it might be tricky to get a balance between comprehensiveness and excessive detail). Similarly, the section on Prost Grand Prix seems superficial to me; there no mention of its performance in 2001. Zawed (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the level of coverage I think a summary style is necessary as the seasons, races, cars, and teams all have their own articles which can be linked to. A focus needs to be maintained on Prost himself and not other topics which should be covered elsewhere. Otherwise this article clearly needs a lot of work. Some of the material seems to be editorialising and some of the sources seem inappropriate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Significant sourcing issues, nothing has been done in that area. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, take it to FARC, no apparent activity being undertaken in response to concerns raised. Zawed (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [24].

Nancy Drew edit

Notified: Ricardiana, NDfan173, WP Literature, WP Fictional characters, WP Novels, WP Media franchises, WP Popular Culture, WP US, WP Women’s History, 2020-10-25 talk page notification

Review section edit

This is a 2009 promotion whose main editor is hardly active that has been tagged as needing expansion since 2017. It has not been maintained current, and there are multiple new scholarly sources that have not been used. Other than that, the article seems to be in good shape, so I hope someone will take on improvements. One problem (across many articles) is that many of the Literature Wikiprojects are tagged as semi-active; I am noticing them anyway. See article talk for a list of newer sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC No significant edits since buidhe posted their concerns in October. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no change, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, nothing happening. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred on currency of both content and sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to lack of activity. I was actually thinking about working on the article, but there are serious issues with citation (as there are several areas throughout the article that do not have citations). I hope this article can get to FA status again in the future though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Currency and sourcing issues need a lot of work that isn't happening. Hog Farm Talk 18:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements from September 2020; tagged for expansion since 2017. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2021 (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) 21:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [25].

Slavery in ancient Greece edit

Notified: Daimanta, various wikiprojects, January

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues raised by RD in his talk page notification more than 1 month ago have not been addressed, primarily various sourcing issues including "heavy use of ancient, primary sources", lack of English language scholarship, etc. (t · c) buidhe 18:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lack detailed expertise in this subject area but I have removed a couple of obviously-unreferenced comments. I agree with RetiredDuke, this article needs serious work or downgrading. But my thanks to the authors, it is good in the non-technical sense, and enlightening. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by llywrch

I have no problem with FA citing primary sources, & I don't see an objectionably heavy use of ancient or primary sources here. (A discussion of the sources would be useful, though. Some facts about Greek slavery are obvious from the primary sources; some need to be deduced from evidence or analogy, & therefore need to be drawn from the secondary literature.) But that doesn't mean there aren't problems in this article:

  • In the section "Sources of Supply", 4 sources for slaves are listed. I find it amazing that slaves giving birth wasn't listed. Another overlooked source for slaves was rescuing exposed infants. Both of these sources have the benefit that people enslaved in this manner are trained from an early age to be a slave & that freedom is not for them.
  • I agree that the citation system needs to be made consistent. (This is probably the easiest problem to fix.)
  • I also agree that the extensive number of items under "Further reading" means there is more material waiting to be integrated into this article. Or, in other words, it's clearly evidence that this article does not fully cover the subject.
  • Towards the end of the article is a section "Views of Greek slavery > Modern views". I think the modern consensus opinion is that slavery is a bad thing; ownership of other people is immoral & justifiably illegal. And that succinctly sums up everything that needs to be said in that section. The only reason to discuss modern views is that some of our contemporaries may argue that Greek slavery "wasn't all bad", or something like that. That material better belongs in another article, say Modern views of slavery or Modern apologies for slavery. -- llywrch (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take a rather more extended view of Modern - from the use of the printing press onwards is the usual extent. Your comment may well be valid as a summary of liberal views in 2021, but there is more to be said and the article at present does try to say it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I am dubious of its relevance in this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod
  • The main author, User:Jastrow, has only made 6 edits since 2017, so I doubt help can be expected from there. He translated what I think was his own article from wp:fr, hence the bulk of French sources. This is not a reason to deny or remove FA status.
  • I don't agree, on a subject this broad, that "the extensive number of items under "Further reading" means there is more material waiting to be integrated into this article. Or, in other words, it's clearly evidence that this article does not fully cover the subject." Any big subject could have such a list, & the one here seems rather obsessed with piracy - rather a marginal aspect one might think. Much of it could probably be trimmed - all the items not in English perhaps. It would be useful to know if there has been any really major work since the article passed FA. But one good thing about this article is that the many sources (though admittedly often in French) are mostly pretty recent - by no means always the case.
  • Slavery in classical Greek literature struck me as a missing section.
  • I'm not very bothered by the primary sources, nor what the reviewer calls "unsourced notes".
  • The "author needed" points seem to have been dealt with, or are trivial.
  • All in all seems ok as an FA to me.

Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hog Farm
  • I don't have time to do a full review, but the very first thing I glanced at in this article has some issues. I saw the sentence working leased land belonging to rich landowners and unable to pay their rents. In theory, those so enslaved would be liberated when their original debts were repaid. The system was developed with variants throughout the Near East and is cited in the Bible. This is cited to six verses out of Deuteronomy (I'm using the NIV for my comparison). However, most of this isn't supported by those six verses. The source passage is about people selling themselves as servants/slaves for debts, and does not specifically mention the land rent system in our article. In the biblical passage, the arrangement is said to be for a set period of time, and does not mention being freed due to debts being paid off. The verses also do not mention non-Israelite cultures. So almost the whole of the one statement I looked at in this article is not supported by the given citation. That does not bode well. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Move to FARC No significant improvements since RetiredDuke posted their concerns in January. (I created a new section to avoid the impression that this comment was made by Hog Farm.) Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar throws up about 72900 sources, most of which are too niche for a general article but I concur that we need more modern coverage. The thing about contemporary sources is that they are generally not sufficiently disinterested/have a too narrow point of view and cannot perform a proper synthesis/analysis without the benefit of hindsight. Plus there is often the question of reliability. I'd favour delisting an article that relies this much on ancient sources.

On the other hand, I think that the Odyssey and Iliad are reliable sources for their own claims and seeing as they are the major fiction (?) literature of the time mentioning them is OK, but only with intext attribution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but there are reliable sources, e.g. on slavery in the Odyssey:[26][27] which provide the proper context for representation of slavery in Greek literature. (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved reply to talk Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. There are quite a few sizable chunks only sourced to primary sources. Which isn't great for the reasons listed above. It's also worth noting that when working with ancient sources, the ancient idea of history is not necessarily equivalent to what we would want from modern historical sources. See, for instance, the Antiquities of the Jews, which, although not used here, is a fairly standard ancient history in the sense that there's a good deal of legendary or otherwise unreliable accretion. Hog Farm Talk 21:06, 27 March 2021 (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. DrKay (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [28].

United Kingdom corporation tax edit

Notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, Business, diff

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is far from meeting the FA criteria. Not less than 40 cn tags, text only cited in the 6-paragraph long lede, not updated much since 2007 (including entire 'recent developements heading detailing 2004 changes). Two largest contributors not edited since 2007. I propose an accelerated process. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur with the call for accelerated process. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to accelerated FARC Support an accelerated process. The "Interaction with European law" section needs a major post-Brexit revamp and there are too many cn tags. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated, complete rewrite needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FARC, accelerated process - This needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated delist - Significant sourcing and currency issues, will need a thorough rewrite. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • accelerated delist, per above. No progress. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and dead links. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated delist - sourcing is far off the mark, and there's been no engagement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2021 (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) 21:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 1:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC) [29].

Charles Edward Magoon edit

Notified: Jrp, WikiProject Cuba, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, 2020-12-05 diff

Review section edit

I'm nominating this Featured Article for review because I believe it fails criteria 1. c), "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The subject of this article was, among other things, the governor of Cuba during the Second Occupation of Cuba by the US. Currently, the bulk of the sources in this article are contemporary newspaper articles dated between 1900 and 1909. This does not allow for a retrospective look into this politician's career by historians, especially when there is so much academic material out there (I've listed a few sources in talk, and a brief search in JSTOR shows many more). RetiredDuke (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may be an accelerate candidate - it's just so far from WP:FACR #1c. There is a decent corpus of scholarly literature about this figure, yet the article is almost entirely sourced to contemporary newspapers reports. The lack of use of non-contemporary scholarly sources also limits the amount of legacy material that can be had, which suggests #1b issues, as well. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC accelerated - Needs a significant rewrite with modern sources, also some missing cites in general. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Accelerated (official declaration). This is just so far from 1c. Almost none of the sizable scholarly literature on this topic is being used. Hog Farm Talk 20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC accelerated Except for one 1971 source (footnoted twice), the rest of the sources are from 100+ years ago. This article will need a complete rewrite using current academic scholarship, which is difficult for FAR/FARC to accomplish. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated delist - Needs a complete rewrite, as it uses almost exclusively old newspaper sources and ignores significant amounts of scholarly literature. Hog Farm Talk 00:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2021 (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) 21:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2021&oldid=1019561650"