Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2022

< 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Great Fire of London edit

Notified: Nikkimaria, Buidhe (talk page discussion); Bishonen (FA nominator); Outriggr, Tony1, Kirill Lokshin (involved in bringing it to FA status in 2006); Kuzwa (nominator for 2008 FAR); Dilidor, Howard352, Pontificalibus (substantial recent edits); London, Disaster management (WikiProjects), 2020-09-25, 2021-11-29

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks consistent citations, neglects recently published research, and is relying too heavily on primary sources. I had first raised these issues about 14 months ago, and some changes were made by Nikkimaria; however, the majority of the problems remain, and go beyond what I had initially looked at, as was pointed out today in more detail by Buidhe on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a quick skim, I see lots of uncited paragraphs. These will need to be sourced before this article can retain its FA status. Z1720 (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, there actually are not - the article just uses a more unusual citation style. See for example FN45. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct Nikki: I did not notice that the unusual citation style for some paragraphs, including the "Tuesday" section. This citation style makes it difficult for the reader to know where the information is cited from, as the reader will have to know to check the footnotes for the explanatory note, and will have to find the footnote that has the explanatory note. (For example, in aftermath the explanatory fn is fn 65, the second footnote of the first paragraph, while in Tuesday it is after the first sentence.) Also, the range of page numbers is large, and it might be beneficial to give specific page numbers for information. Would this citation style still be acceptable in FAC? I do not recommend this style myself. Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also wouldn't recommend it, but I'm not sure I would go so far as to forbid it. The ranges are not IMO unreasonably huge, and if necessary the footnote could be repeated to improve findability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added.
  • The section "Monday" is based on Tinniswood, 58–74, unless otherwise indicated.
Would be lovely if someone got their hands on Tinniswood and just added the page nos. I don't know which version of the book to suggest, since the citation mentions publisher= Jonathan Cape, but amazon.com has two different versions with publisher= Riverhead Books, and we don't have an ISBN. They both now seem to be Penguin Books ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC I looked at the creep problem last year and it seemed to have limited drift, but I can have another look. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that the first FAR (2008) and the FA nomination (2006) both discussed the question of the "unusual citation style", and came to the conclusion that using the footnotes as they are now was better than to "clutter" the article with citations (compare Hans Adler's comment here, and Piotrus's vote and the discussion below it here). I do get the argument, but maybe it is good to reassess this -- just to be sure that, 15 years on, our ideas about how an FA should look (with regard to the style and "density" of citations) haven't significantly changed. I am of the opinion that a citation style that confuses the reader, and even experienced editors, and makes it difficult to locate information in the cited sources, can't be the preferred option, no matter if Wikipedia technically allows it. Renerpho (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment since I was summoned. The article is clearly undercited - there are paragraphs or parts of that are clearly missing citations at the end. I also see that some footnotes are not citations but notes. This article has therefore serious referencing problems and is not even at the GA level in that regard. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Renerpho

  • @Nikkimaria: I see you are working on the citations - thanks a lot! I changed some of the en-dashes, for consistency. I'll look at how well these citations work later. I just noticed one minor problem that should be easy to address: Some references, like "Hanson, 326–33", shorten the page range (326–333 is implied); some, like "Hanson (2001), 326–333", don't, and/or give the year of publication. This is not done consistently. Renerpho (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Year of publication is (or should be) given for Hanson because there are multiple works by that author in the References list; this disambiguation is not needed for the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've fixed one half of the issue. The question of the page number format remains. The difference between FN4 and FN67 is the most obvious, but there are others. Renerpho (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All Hanson citations now refer to the 2001 book. Why is the 2002 book included in the references? The list of references says that this is A "substantially different" version of Hanson's The Dreadful Judgement (front matter). - What does that mean, and why is it good/bad/useful/interesting? Renerpho (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useful if both are cited, because it lets the reader know that they are different editions of the same work. If it's not cited it shouldn't be included, but how did you determine that the refs lacking disambiguation were to the 2001 and not the 2002? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: There was just one instance where no year was given. I got my hands on Hanson's 2002 book. The easiest way to see that it's not the cited work is that it only has 294 pages (322 including front matter etc), so a reference to page 326 makes no sense. I don't have the 2001 book, but FN4 and FN67 are obviously the same citation, for very similar facts, just with different citation format. That is what I found problematic. I have no objections against keeping (Hanson, 2002), but we should better explain what it is for. Regarding the "substantially different" part: The 2002 book says that this book in a substantially different form under the title The Dreadful Judgement was first published in the United Kingdom in 2001 by Doubleday, a division of Transworld Publishers (page iv). The words "front matter" in the reference were unclear to me until I realised that they indicated that this was a quote from the front matter of the 2002 book. Until then, I wondered why a difference about the front matter should be substantial, and why that's noteworthy; or why one would only publish the front matter of the 2001 book (okay, maybe I'd have to be stupid to think that, but the reference just isn't clear). -- There is one more problem: Because I don't have the 2001 book, I can not verify that any of the Hanson citations actually are what they claim to be, and I have serious doubts that they are. The only first edition of that book that I could find, Doubleday, ISBN 9780385601344, has 320 pages, which makes a reference to pages 326-333 hard to understand. The Wikipedia article gives no detail regarding which edition it talks about, so good luck searching. Renerpho (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC) EDIT: I suppose it talks about the paperback version, Doubleday, ISBN 9780385603270, 378 pages, but I can't be sure. Renerpho (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the 2002 work is not cited, I've removed it from References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now the inconsistent citation format is the only problem remaining. Renerpho (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation format issue has been resolved. Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am relaying the reply of User:Bishonen (the FA nominator), who said they won't join the discussion, but that This new source, which was mentioned on talk, sounds like a must if the article is to remain featured. Renerpho (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article relies very heavily on Tinniswood's book for the timeline. Often it is the only source for entire sections, which can't be a good thing. The book was quite recent when the majority of this article was written in 2004-2006. We should check if anything published since 2003 disagrees with Tinniswood's account, and say so. Where necessary, (parts of) the timeline have to be rewritten from more up-to-date sources. Renerpho (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we rely so heavily on Tinniswood also raises the question of whether any parts of the article contain material that (accidentally) infringes on copyright. This should be checked as well, just in case. The FA nomination doesn't mention copyright, so I don't know if the question was ever raised (and answered) before. Renerpho (talk) 06:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does cite [2] in one (fairly inconsequential) instance, but makes no use of the rest of that source. Renerpho (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This study from 2020 presents new insights into how the rebuilding was financed (a much more expensive matter than previously thought). Renerpho (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe gives these sources on the article talk page, to be incorporated into the article:[3][4][5] Renerpho (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to."
  • "All quotes from and details involving John Evelyn come from his diary."
  • And do we trust those people to tell the truth, or claim that we are capable of interpreting their diaries? I would much rather read the learned opinion of a historian about Pepys' accounts than the interpretation of whoever Wikipedia editor(s) put them into the article. Does any of the secondary sources give those quotes as relevant for the history of the Great Fire? If so, I suggest to cite those (alongside the diary, if deemed appropriate). Renerpho (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly relevant sources include [6][7][8]. Quite a lot seems to be published about this, so it shouldn't be hard to find sources. It may be hard to decide which ones to use... Renerpho (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my copy of the book, the quote "People do all the world over cry out of the simplicity [the stupidity] of my Lord Mayor in general; and more particularly in this business of the fire, laying it all upon him." from Pepys' diary has a comma where the article gives a semicolon, and an instance of different spelling. I am not sure this is significant at all (and even if it is, if it should be changed), but elsewhere the article clarifies when spelling is modernized for clarity, so I thought I'd raise it, just in case. Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC) I am striking this point, upon further thought. The article does explain that "all web versions of the diaries are based on public domain 19th century editions and unfortunately contain many errors, as the shorthand in which Pepys' diaries were originally written was not accurately transcribed until the pioneering work of Latham and Matthews." The question whether spelling is modernized consistently in the article remains, but that's not a pressing issue at the moment. Renerpho (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the footnotes 80-91, which link to various websites:

  • Hinds, Allen B, ed. (1935): This links here. I have tried to find something related to the sentence it is supposed to verify ("it reduced the risk of French ships crossing the Channel and the North Sea being taken or sunk by the English fleet") on that page, but I was not successful. Maybe I am blind, or it's just not there. If the page range is reduced from the unnecessarily large "80-97" to the exact page where this appears, that should solve the problem. Or do we actually need the entire 18 pages to verify a half sentence? Renerpho (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Another monument marks the spot where the fire stopped: the Golden Boy of Pye Corner in Smithfield" is currently cited from here. This is an image of the Golden Boy of Pye Corner monument, but if I am not mistaken, nothing on that page says what the monument is marking, or that this is where the fire stopped. The article for the Golden Boy of Pye Corner seems to have citation problems of its own, with a citation needed tag, and no source for the question at hand (linking to the same web page as its only source, and missing a source for the inscription itself). Renerpho (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source states that the figure was "Erected to mark the point where The Great Fire of 1666 was finally extinguished". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what does it mean to mark the spot "where the fire stopped"? Is it the last place that was burning? Because the fire stopped everywhere once it was out, right? Renerpho (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sentence "Historians disagree as to whether the fire played a part in preventing subsequent major outbreaks": Right now the article follows with The Museum of London website claims that there was a connection, while historian Roy Porter points out that the fire left the slum suburbs untouched. Looking at the museum website (the linked archived version from 2006), I find this: "The Great Fire of 1666 could not be responsible since it was almost totally confined to the City, and even there, the parishes most affected by plague (to the north and east) were untouched by the fire." That does not sound like a claim that there was a connection. Renerpho (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we really call channel4.com the "Museum of London website"? Channel4 is quoting the museum's director here, but that's a different thing, isn't it? Renerpho (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor issue: The full transcript of the interview with the museum director does not touch the question at hand, so here Channel4 must be quoting one of the other unnamed "experts at the museum". I can't find out which one. Renerpho (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been resolved. Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am checking all instances where the article gives dates for particular events. So far I have noticed:

  • In the Aftermath section, the article currently says that Hubert was convicted, despite some misgivings about his fitness to plead, and hanged at Tyburn on 28 September 1666. This disagrees with the article on Robert Hubert himself, where his date of death is given as 27 October 1666.[9] Which of these is correct? Renerpho (talk) 05:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fire hazards in the city section, the article speaks of a fire in 1632, said to have been the last major fire before "the great one". Looking at early fires of London, I find no mention of such a fire, but reference to a major fire in 1633.[10] (That 1632 fire is mentioned several times throughout the article.) Renerpho (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tuesday, 4 September was the day of greatest destruction." - Yet, it is the day that gets the least amount of text. Could be because there's nothing to say, but I find it odd. Renerpho (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that we keep the current citation style (which I do NOT recommend), the following sections need additional citations. The better option would be to completely overhaul the references, to address the issues raised above. In that case the points below remain valid, in that these sections need new references, but so would the entire rest of the article:

  • In the Sunday section, parts of the 2nd and 3rd paragraph are not referenced. Some of the other paragraphs have statements that may or may not need citations, but since the only references given are complete chapters of books, this would have to be checked by someone who has access to those books (which I do not; many of the references given in the article are impossible to verify for me). Note that there is no The section "Sunday" is based on... reference, unlike for the other days. Why is that? Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the parts you are referring to here are from Pepys' diary, which is covered by FN20. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am beginning to hate this article. Renerpho (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC
    The section suffers from the same problem that affects large parts of the article, by referring to a hard to interpret primary source. It doesn't merely quote Pepys; that would be acceptable. It treats the content of his diary as factual information, where it is merely an eye witness report. An example: Things like Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire need a proper source, or be changed to Pepys claims that Charles' brother James, Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire. If any of the secondary sources (Tinnisworth? Porter? Hanson? anyone?) come to the conclusion that his diary as a whole can be treated as neutral and reliable, or if there is another reliable source for the information, then that can be cited. Until then, anything Pepys writes should be treated with the appropriate care, as it may be driven by a hidden political agenda. Renerpho (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources (including both Tinniswood and Hanson) use them extensively as sources for historical information. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starting at A special Fire Court was set up..., two paragraphs of the Aftermath section don't have a single reference. Where is this stuff coming from? Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a section reference for Aftermath, so presumably that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The section "Aftermath" is based on Reddaway, 27 ff. and Tinniswood, 213–37, unless otherwise indicated - Which is it, Reddaway, or Tinniswood? Which of the 25+ pages? Which editions (the books listed are hard to identify, as no ISBN are given)? With that kind of vagueness, we may just add a single citation to the first sentence of the article, saying This article is based on the books listed at the end, unless otherwise indicated. Renerpho (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Since you have been editing the Tinniswood citations, I suppose you have identified the relevant edition. Can you add the necessary details to the article (ISBN etc)? Renerpho (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the correct edition of Tinniswood can be found onthe Internet Archive, I've added the link. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue raised by SandyGeorgia, We also don't know if new text has crept in since the note was added, remains. The problem is that the current citation style makes the article very rigid, and makes it very difficult to edit it without breaking its integrity. Any user who may want to add something would have to be warned with flashing red letters that they have to make clear which parts come from the "old" reference (and possibly copy/paste that reference to the sections that aren't supposed to be affected), and which ones come from the "new" one. Someone will have to check whether the current article text (every sentence of it) is supported by the existing references. (Where I have access to the sources, I'll be happy to help with that where I can.) Renerpho (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dicklyon has raised the question on the talk page why "City" is capitalized in the article. The question was discussed in December 2006, but the discussion was abandoned with an explanation that seems unsatisfactory. I know that the "City of London" is a thing, but is it really what the article is talking about (i.e. "the City proper"), or is that something else again? And why is "City wall" capped? Isn't this just a "city wall"? Renerpho (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue was resolved on the article talk page. Renerpho (talk) 17:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Renerpho (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Looking at the latest revision, I see you removed my recently added url after "Popish Plot and the exclusion crisis later in his reign". I think this should stand, because I am citing the 2006 version of that work here, not the most recent 2020 version to which the DOI and title refers (which may or may not work as a source, but why assume that it does?). Also, the 2020 version of this isn't freely available, while the 2006 version is. I don't know if there's a policy for this, but I usually prefer sources that are accessible. Renerpho (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a more recent source, the 2017 version works, too. Renerpho (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold FAR – I'm not sure if I'm up to the task, to be honest. But I'd prefer if the discussion was kept open at least for a short while (another week or so?). Some work is being done (Nikkimaria has added inline citations, for example), and while many of the issues remain unaddressed, I'm not sure where this is going yet.
I second SandyGeorgia's question: Does anyone have access to the Jacob Field book, or some of the other sources needed? Also, is there anyone besides Nikkimaria who is willing to work on this article? Because this is getting too big for the two of us (well, for me at least). Right now, I even struggle to summarize what has to be done, let alone actually do it. Renerpho (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested it and am waiting for it to arrive. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful; then I'm on board for any assistance I might offer in retaining this star. Let me know if there any tasks I can tackle, Nikkimaria. Renerpho, I suggest moving the bulk of work to the article talk page, using some organized sections, and using this page only for updates on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Renerpho: Could you please move those points that you feel have been addressed to the review talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'll return from vacation on Monday, I'll get to it at that point. Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho I set up the section for you on talk to make the move easier. If you move anything resolved to talk, we can more easily see what work remains. Happy New Year and safe travels home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho hasn't edited since 2 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. There is a wall of text above, too hard to sort out what is addressed to satisfy Renerpho’s concerns, while Nikkimaria has gotten hold of the new book, and (as far as we know) worked through all of the issues. How can we get fresh eyes on the new product? Perhaps moving it to FARC will trigger others to look in and list any remaining concerns so this FA can be saved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber and DrKay: Renerpho has still not edited since 2 January. They left extremely long commentary on this page which is now difficult to sort through. Nikkimaria has incorporated the new book, and extensively reworked the article. Absent further feedback from the nominator, do we close without FARC, or move to FARC for !voting, or hope someone else will weigh in? @Buidhe, Extraordinary Writ, Hog Farm, and Z1720: for more feedback. I'd !vote to close it; if/when Renerpho returns to editing, they can reopen (after about a six-month wait) if they still find issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like most of the issues that were originally brought up have been addressed, such as lack of inline citations and non-incorporation of recent sources. Not sure if it would pass FAC today but I'm not opposed to closing at this point. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually haven't read this article directly, but I can give it a quick skim over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you all can opine then I can keep coordinator hat on and do the administrative tasks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas! Waiting on Hog Farm now; unless he finds something onerous, I'll be at close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HF
  • "By the 1660s, London was by far the largest city in Britain, estimated at 400,000 inhabitants" but also "By the late 17th century, the City proper—the area bounded by the city wall and the River Thames—was only a part of London, covering some 700 acres (2.8 km2; 1.1 sq mi),[10] and home to about 80,000 people, or one quarter of London's inhabitants" which suggests 320,000. These are clearly estimates, but is there a way to work this together better to indicate a range?
  • Would it be feasible to link to List of Christopher Wren churches in London instead of the category in "and its smaller cousins, Christopher Wren's 51 new churches"

I'm at a keep here, as there doesn't seem to be major issues remaining. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a population range and changed the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. Nikkimaria, please review my edits for accuracy (particularly where I removed Easter egg links).
    I hope Renerpho is well, and should they return to editing and still have concerns, that those can be addressed via normal talk page dialogue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 27 January 2022 (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. DrKay (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2022 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC) [11].

2003 Pacific hurricane season edit

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, talk page notification 2021-04-16

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - As FAR nominator, how does the progress look? There's been some work, but it looks like the names section is still unsourced, as is the damages section. I'm also concerned that the damages material is a bit contradictory at times - For instance, the table states that Olaf affected both Texas and Mexico, and had "minimal" damage, while the prose describes severe flooding that affected thousands of homes, but makes no mention of TX. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still doesn't look up to scratch, with (what I presume is) the low-hanging fruit not dealt with. Regarding comparisons to other FAs as mentioned above, my reference was 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which went through FAR in 2020. Even in the case there's not as much to say for this article as there is for that one in Seasonal forecasts and Seasonal summary, the Storm names and Season effects sections are areas this article should match. CMD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can deal with the low hanging fruit. As for the previous comment about Olaf, "severe flooding"!="minimal damage" per se, as "flooding" is not "damage". YE Pacific Hurricane 08:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The last edit to the article was September 26. @Yellow Evan: are you finished with fixing up this article? If so, post here and others (like me) will review the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done some things but I still need to copyedit it and need to make all the referencing consistent. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no improvements since September 26, as mentioned two weeks ago by Z1720. FAR strives to keep nominations open as long as possible, particularly when work is ongoing, but several current FARs are stretching the limits of that generosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - would you be able to take another look at this, to see if your concerns are still outstanding? Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They do, there remains an entirely unsourced section. CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sourced; in the past, the season effect charts did not have a source option and it is the same information that is presented that's already listed in the prose but since that's changed, I added it. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see @Yellow Evan: did some more work on 11/2, although a skim reveals some issues to me, as well. There are prose issues such as "Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was $100 million.[45] Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was estimated at $100 million" appearing in the Marty section, the predictions table does not seem to be fully sourced, the various low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere, and some other issues. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the rest, but what do you mean by "low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere"? Are you talking about the infobox? Past seasonal articles have passed FAC without that being an issue and I'm not really sure I can squeeze a citation in the infobox. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Yellow Evan: - Each of the little infoboxes for the storms in the section for each system contains an unsourced statement giving what the lowest pressure for each system was. Surely this can be worked into the prose description of the system and cited there, like the max wind speeds for each storm are? Hog Farm Talk 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1f (although still fixable I believe with attribution). CCI checks on talk: I found very minor amounts of copying within Wikipedia when the structure of the article was being set up. I ran several Earwig checks on the diffs when bulk of text was added (Tom and Nilfanion), comparing the archive.org versions of the sources with the text as inserted (in the article before it was copyedited at FAC), and found no too-close paraphrasing or copyvio. I queried the CCI people on the talk page of the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones as to whether this minor CWW needs to be noted on talk with a template. It looks pretty clean to me, but still learning the CCI ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on talk, so while I found no problems prior to the FAC, unfortunately there has been unattributed copying within while the article has been at FAR. Yellow Evan, please read WP:CWW, in particular, the need for specific attribution in edit summary. Because that wasn't done, it is my understanding that the CCI people will have to add templates to the article talk page. Not an expert, I could be wrong on all of this, this is the first time I have done this kind of analysis. But please see WP:PATT, and be sure to add a hyperlink to the article name you are copying from in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More on talk. Found at least one cut-and-paste inserted during the FAR, needs public domain attribution, too tired to look for the rest, but it needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: still waiting for CCI people to check my work. [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I completed the CCI check here on talk, and have now added public domain attribution throughout and {{Copied}} templates for WP:CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - Would you be able to take a look at this again? Yellow Evan - I've tagged an uncited spot with a CN. Hog Farm Talk 05:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That text was removed by DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the CCI work and believe the article is now 1f clear. Yellow Evan has not edited since December 3. @Chipmunkdavis and Hog Farm: how does this look to you now? If we aren't completely out of the woods yet, I will be entering a delist; we just can't do this much work on every WP:Cyclone article, particularly if the Project doesn't begin to do their own CCI cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring issues have been dealt with. I will say it doesn't feel up to the par of the other recently saved ones, but unfortunately do not have time to go into detail on comprehensiveness at the moment. CMD (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all my major quibbles have been dealt with, although I don't have a whole lot of subject-specific knowledge here. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since you two are not unhappy, I will do a full read-through in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at other Season articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Seasons, the lead here seems sparse. “Despite the overall lack of activity,” contains no mention of season summary info from the body, like the La Niña effect.
    I mention the no majors/storm total/hurricane total in the lead as is. The La Nina was only a projection from experts at the time and it actually didn't develop (I can't mention this in the article as there aren't any sources connecting the season activity to the lack of La Nina, or really anything). YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now slightly expanded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward, complete rewrite would help: The most notable cyclones during the year were Hurricanes Ignacio and Marty, which both struck the Baja California Peninsula as hurricanes and killed 2 and 12 people across the country.
    Now better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the lead is so short, why not name them? … Three other Pacific storms, two of which were hurricanes, and three Atlantic storms also had a direct impact on Mexico.
    Now added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the “denoted in parentheses” refer to ? The table of storms that formed in the 2003 Pacific hurricane season includes their duration, names, landfall(s), denoted in parentheses, damages, and death totals.
    I re-wrote the lead so most of this is non-applicable. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still here, still don't understand what is denoted in parentheses: "The table of storms that formed in the 2003 Pacific hurricane season includes their duration, names, landfall(s), denoted in parentheses, damages, and death totals."
    Oh, this stems from an older version of the season effects chart. Removed. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and all the damage figures are in 2003 USD. … so why not just put that in the table heading?
    I'll add a note. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect dashes on date ranges in table, eg May 19 – 25 … but since some other dates in the table do need a spaced endash, because they include Mon dd – Mon dd, why not make them all the same, for consistency?
    Sorry but I'm a little confused. Do you want me to remove the endashes or no? YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The dates in the table did not comply with MOS:DATERANGE. May 19 – 25 should be written May 19–25, or May 19 – May 25. There are two possibilities for fixing that: a) convert all dates to full Month day, year with a spaced endash (eg, August 28 – September 5), which would make the table consistent and conforming with MOS; or b) remove the spaces around the WP:ENDASH on those that occurred within the same month. If most of the hurricanes in that season had overlapped months, I would recommend option a. But only one did, so I instead implemented option b.[13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is generic info which differs from the actual dates (May 19 to October 26) in the Season effects table. The actual dates of this season seem more important for the lead than this generic info, which would seem to fit better in the Seasonal summary section. Either that, or rework the whole thing to include the actual storm dates (as in the table below) in the lead.
    The season officially started on May 15, 2003, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and on June 1, 2003, in the central Pacific, and lasted until November 30, 2003.[1] These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.
    This generic info is standard for all articles so I'm inclined to leave it in but I'm not sure if it's a good standard myself. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be standard, but it still doesn't work :) It makes no sense to mention general info without also mentioning the specific to this season. I have added that.[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that works really nicely. I'll use that sort of wording in the future, thank you! YE Pacific Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colloquial … The season saw 16 tropical storms form, of which 7 became hurricanes, which is about average. … how is about average different from average ? Higher, lower, what ?
    The terms are interchangeable as "about" isn't a scientific term. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejigged in same edit as above, [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flow in Seasonal forecasts is off, and there is no need for it to read like backwards proseline. The first May forecast foresaw low activity due to La Niña, explain La Niña effect, then the June forecast.
    I've reversed the order. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further tweaks: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seasonal summary section has multiple instances of awkward or ungrammatical prose.
    However, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale); this was the first time this had happened in the eastern Pacific since 1977, and is well below the long-term average of four. … no contradiction (remove however), and the second clause is ungrammatical. —> For the first season since 1977, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale) in the eastern Pacific, where the long-term average is four hurricanes per season. … or something along those lines, although my version could be improved upon.
    I removed the Category 3 bit since it's already mentioned in the first sentence but otherwise, done. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked, [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season was 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific. This value was within the top 10 least active seasons ever since reliable records began in 1971. … Also and additionally are almost always redundant— this one is. Top 10 ever is the same as top 10. —> The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season, at 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific, placed the season among the 10 least active since reliable records began in 1971. … and it needs an as of date (is this fact still true almost two decades later?)
    Source is from 2020 and 2021 beat it out but sure. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked to reflect 2020: [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure 2021 will get automatically added pretty soon on that same link but this works for now. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping there, as it is not necessary to read through each storm to see this is not FA-level prose. Unless someone steps up to rewrite the lead and perform a thorough copyedit, it may be time to let this one go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best but I'm still noticing issues anytime I touch this myself, and I'm not super happy with the prose as is. I do appreciate you and others efforts to at least try to keep this going, however. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some further copyediting tweaks, so that the top and bottom of the article are now passable, but I see prose issues in every storm section. If you want to continue attempting to improve, and to keep the FAR open, please say so, and we can ask someone like Z1720 if they might copyedit. Otherwise, the prose is still not at FA level, so my Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; the prose here is not at FA level, and I don’t see it getting there in the course of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we’re within range now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are a lot of issues with this and a full rewrite would take more time than I would have. NoahTalk 18:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TropicalAnalystwx13 just did a large copyedit; TropicalAnalystwx13, what are your thoughts on FA status here? Is this saveable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I'm not experienced in writing FA-quality articles, I don't mind copyediting today and fixing some of the glaring prose issues I see. On its face, I think it should be salvageable unless there are some unknown issues lurking that I'm unaware of (something like missing impact information, which I haven't checked for yet). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TropicalAnalystwx13 please let this page know when you are done, and we can then re-ping reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I think the storm sections are much more aligned with common standards now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, could you take another look? TropicalAnalystwx13 has copyedited now; is there content covered in sources that is missing? Z1720 might you opine on the prose? If Z and Noah are happy, I would strike my Delist (and ping back Hog Farm as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take a look at it. However, my body is reacting badly to the COVID booster and RL stuff is getting busy, so I might be delayed in getting to this. Please ping me if I don't comment within a week. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look at the prose tomorrow after I get off work. NoahTalk 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this should be included. NoahTalk 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hurricane Noah, could you refine that a bit? Most of those returned by the search are either not 2003, or not Pacific, and the one that is 2003 Pacific is that journal that only summarizes the NOAA reports. Unfortunately, that search returns things published in 2003 even if they are not about the 2003 Pacific hurricane season. I’m not sure what else to look at among those search results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that journal summarizing the reports should be added. It has been expected for other season articles since it is academic literature. NoahTalk 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That journal is nothing but reprints of the NOAA reports (something I discovered with my copyvio checks); best I can tell, it is not adding anything (sorry not to have discovered this sooner, but it turns up on every Earwig check as a duplicate of public domain sources, and the public domain NOAA sources are already freely available and fine).
    Also, the idea that WP:WIAFA 1c requires academic or scholarly sources has taken hold at both FAC and FAR but the actual criterion is more nuanced than whether the information comes from a "journal"; the best sources vary by topic area, and a journal that does nothing but repeat public domain information cannot be higher quality than the sources it is merely repeating.
    Is there something specific from there that should be included for the article to "neglect no major facts" (WIAFA 1b)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to this one specifically, but they usually contain general information about the season (ie records, landfalls, other info) that this could be used to source. NoahTalk 02:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Said journal summarizing the reports doesn't add anything that isn't already mentioned in the article so there's no need to cite it. Normally, this journal article includes some reason for why the season was/wasn't inactive that isn't include elsewhere, but for some reason, this did not happen here. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with YE here, having skimmed most of this article, there's not really much not in there, aside from a specification that Carlos affected 40+ communities, and a statement that the reason Igancio had so much rainfall was because it moved slow. I had look for missing coverage earlier in the FAR and had come to the conclusion that there just wasn't as much written about this season. Hog Farm Talk 05:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay then if this one doesn't include the normally-present extra material. I don't have access to these journals without going through someone else so I can't preview them beforehand. That was likely the only academic lit source that would have warranted inclusion so I think we are now fine in that regard. As I said yesterday, I will review the prose when I get off work today. NoahTalk 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "storms of Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale (SSHWS)" Needs to be sourced. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the lead? It is already sourced in the body; perhaps I'm missing something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's never sourced in the body that a major hurricane is a Cat 3 storm. The only statement in the body is that there were no major hurricanes. NoahTalk 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I misunderstood; done.[20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the season ending on November 30" would clarify this is for both. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which is an average season" should be was since the averages are different now. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "US$21 million in damages" Damage. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Hurricanes Olaf and Hurricanes Nora struck" delete the second hurricanes. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Niña conditions generally restrict tropical cyclone development in the Northeast Pacific, which is the opposite of its effect in the Atlantic.[3]" I feel like this would be better directly after the NOAA CPHC forecast. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for duplicate links. I will get to more later. NoahTalk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed quite a few, but also left some that I thought could be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "18:00 UTC on May 19 well to the south of Mexico" TCR for Andres gives a precise distance. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the location for Andres and all the others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite increasing wind shear from an anticyclone causing the system's convection to become displaced from the circulation" The wind shear is mentioned as having disrupted the storm after the peak, causing Andres to fluctuate between 45-50 kt for a few days. The NHC actually mentioned the improved structure as the storm reached its peak. This statement is currently inaccurate as is. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily, the NHC said banding improved, but that doesn't negate the circulation still being exposed. Nevertheless, I added the bit about the banding. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remnant of Blanca " Should be remnants. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Puerto Ángel NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, Carlos attained peak winds of 65 mph (100 km/h)" I would delete the bolded portion as it doesn't make sense here. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which persisted until dissipating on June 29" I don't like the mixing of verb tenses. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed that the unit displays are jumbled. Some areas have metric first and others US units first. I would recommend it be US first since that is the standard. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout its path, the storm affected about 148,000 people" Anything less vague then affected? NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for a replacement source here, since this link is actually dead. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found this, which I'll replace. Also going to add information from this source for other sections. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The disturbance organized into Tropical Depression Four-E by 06:00 UTC on July 6 about 1,205 km (750 mi) to the south-southwest of Baja California Sur" Feel like there should be a comma after July 6. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The depression was designated a tropical depression " Probably meant disturbance was designated? NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to the rest after the New Year's celebrations are over. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the rest for a hurricane person. Stay home, stay safe, don't get COVID out there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 4000 homes is mentioned twice. NoahTalk 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [21] Might be worth mentioning the 31 in of rain. NoahTalk 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • An image, unfortunately, and I don't consider a rainfall total something significant to include in case where you are merely writing a summary. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article does mention the peak total of 3.75 in for Nora (and for several other storms). I feel an explanation as to how significant the rainfall was for Olaf in its comparison to Nora would be helpful since it left nearly 9X the amount that Nora did. You can cite images such as these with the cite map template. NoahTalk 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dont see any other glaring prose issues. NoahTalk
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) [22].

Italian War of 1521–1526 edit

Notified: Kirill Lokshin, WP MILHIST, WP Germany, WP Spain, WP France, WP Italy, WP Turkey, WP England, 2020-01-28, 2021-06-18

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion from editor extraordinaire and MILHIST maverick, Kirill Lokshin. I am nominating it reluctantly because it is the oldest of our WP:FARGIVEN notifications, and has now been waiting almost two years for edits to bring it to current FA standards. Alack and alas, Kirill has not found time to upgrade the article; as MILHIST is what it is thanks to Kirill's early leadership, hopefully others will have the sources and time to restore this star. The main issue is uncited text, with other minor issues that can be addressed if someone is able to cite the article and check that latest scholarship is represented (at minimum, a MOS review, MOS:SANDWICH, probably needs an image review as we didn't do those back then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, sadly. I was hoping someone would be able to pick this one up, I don't have the sourcing myself. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now looking at getting the images (including the maps) up to FA standard. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now starting on the citations, lots of work needed here, so any help would be welcomed. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 there is still considerable uncited text; are you able to cite the article considering no one else is helping? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia yes, the article needs a lot of attention. I'm working on the citations at present, and should be ready to do some updating shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125 Happy to see work continuing! Just a weekly check ... there is still quite a bit of uncited text; are you still thinking this star can be saved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these intended to be the same source? Samples .. ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Konstam, Pavia 1525, 28.
    • Konstam, Pavia 1525, 28–29.
    • Konstam 1996, pp. 30–33.
Hi SandyGeorgia, The citations are not yet fully revised, and two sections are yet to be checked for factual accuracy. Still working on the article, but am slowing down this week a bit. It's definitely salvable imo Amitchell125 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all the citations have been sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now fully cited, some queries (not a MilHist person, sorry for dumb questions):

  • "The Pope, the Emperor, and Henry VIII then signed a formal alliance against France ... " This is presumably the Treaty of Bruges (1521)? Why don't we name it in the lead? Yet in the body of the article, we leave out the Emperor: "On 28 November 1521 Charles V and Henry VIII signed in secret the Treaty of Bruges."
Sorted. AM
  • Would it be helpful to link the first occurrence of Imperial to Holy Roman Emperor, although that would result in a duplicate link in the lead?
Done, but I used [[Holy_Roman_Empire#Reformation_and_Renaissance]]. AM
  • Which Spain link should be used here? " ... the major European powers ([[Early modern France|France]], [[Kingdom of England|England]], Spain, and the [[Holy Roman Empire]]) were outwardly friendly towards each other ...
Link added. AM
  • Outstandingly feels unnecessary; is it needed (redundant) and does the source support it? Francis was faced with Henry's outstandingly able, efficient and intelligent chief advisor Cardinal Thomas Wolsey, the "power behind the throne"
Word now removed (it was in the source though). AM
  • Unclear to whom pronouns refer ... "all the electors accepted large bribes from him to win his vote" ... him = Pope Leo X? Francis I ?
Oops, history and pronouns don't mix ... AM
  • undefined term ... as the intervention of Henry of Nassau drove back the Meuse offensive ... confused, because Meuse is a river ...
My fault, the different sources all give different terms for these conflicts. Now sorted. AM
  • I can't tell what is going on here in terms of what pronouns refer to whom. "Charles was meanwhile preoccupied with the issue of Luther, whom he confronted at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. Since Pope Leo X, for his part, was unwilling to tolerate such open defiance of his own authority, he now considered the Emperor as a potential ally to support him against Luther, whose backers included Frederick of Saxony." Does this mean, "Charles was meanwhile preoccupied with the issue of Luther, whom he confronted at the Diet of Worms in April 1521. Pope Leo X was unwilling to tolerate open defiance of his own authority, and considered the Emperor as a potential ally to support him against Luther, whose backers included Frederick of Saxony."
Yes, you're right. Text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now at Francis I's campaign in Italy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "by melting the church plate ... " link to silver ? or something else?
Sentence amended, as more than just the plate in the churches would have been taken to be melted down. AM
  • "intending to interfere in a conflict between pro-Valois and pro-Habsburg factions in the city" ... odd ... intervene ??
Quite. AM
  • The night following the battle, ... since this is a new section ... the Battle of Pavia ?
Agreed, now done. AM
  • I chopped up and re-punctuated a long sentence here, but there is a missing word.
Sorted. AM
  • Can't tell what the intended meaning is here.
Meaning clarified. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 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.

Delisted 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC) [23].

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 edit

This article has been merged to Ron Hamence; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 31 January 2022 (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) 6:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [24].

Epaminondas edit

Notified: Yannismarou, Robth, MinisterForBadTimes, Ragesoss, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Politics, WP LGBT, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, talk page notification 2021-11-13

Review section edit

As noted by T8612 on the article's talk page, this older FA is too heavily reliant on ancient sources and a couple weaker modern sources while neglecting/barely using several key modern works. Hog Farm Talk 22:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist except for a couple edits by Avilich, I'm not seeing an effort to address the issues discussed above, particularly sourcing (t · c) buidhe 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold, Amitchell125 is at work here. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - the scale of the work required to check/remove/improve the citations is proving to be beyond me. Just working on the Historical sources section in my sandbox revealed some of the issues involved, the section clearly needs to be rewritten and re-cited. Within the rest of the article, whole swathes of the text that are not directly related to the subject are duplicated within other articles.
The article could do with a {{more citations needed}} tag, and a thorough copy edit. I can easily remove most of the citations from the old sources (where quotes are not being cited), and address a few other outstanding issues, but I will stop there. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"At work" is a funny way to put it. It's certainly not going anywhere if Amitchell keeps inexplicably removing the only two sources in existence that deal with early life in detail. Not that it matters anyway, there's no way this can remain a FA. Avilich (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2022 (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) 3:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [25].

Tornado edit

Notified: TornadoLGS, ChessEric, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject Severe weather

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of several serious problems with the article. Specifically, the article does not discuss Tornado Emergency, tornadoes in pop culture, and the impact overall to the United States and globally (annual/total damage and deaths) including economic impact. Many sections are outdated in their coverage such as the ongoing research and climate change. Some sections likely need additional content added, for example, academic discussions about tornadoes in Europe. Quite a few references are very old, from the 1990s and early 2000s, and need to be replaced by newer ones. Large swaths of text are unsourced. There is a lot of inconsistent reference formatting and duplicate linking. Alt-text is needed for images. That being said, I never checked the article for Grammar/prose structure given how severe the issues are above. NoahTalk 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Would you be able to do a CCI check on this one? No rush since it's close to Christmas. I just got to feeling well enough again to really resume editing since I had been sick for the past several days. NoahTalk 13:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you have been sick; yes, I will do the CCI work after Christmas. I am hoping that I have a better methodology by now, and can do it faster, and with less questions, but to time how long it takes, I want to have a clear calendar to do it in one sitting. This is a highly summarized article with many sub-articles, so the copying within checks are going to take a very long time. I hope that the talk page here will document the methodology needed, so other editors can help in the future. One very big problem is that we can't just check the current version, as copyvio or copying within are often obscured by the intense editing that happens during a content review at GAN or FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah I am wondering why you did not notify User:Runningonbrains? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also .. User:Evolauxia, User:Thegreatdr, and User:Jason Rees (as these are names I am frequently encountering as I dig back in to the article’s history to do the CCI check, and they are all top contributors). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article now meets WIAFA 1f, compliance with copyright policy; see my summary on talk. This work took 10 hours; it is my hope that this check provides a roadmap for the work needed throughout, and that should be added to FAC, FAR and GAN on all weather-related topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC still has verifiability issues and other issues mentioned by Noah haven't been addressed. (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC My issues noted above remain. NoahTalk 22:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Work has not begun to add the sections noted as missing by Hurricane Noah. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to the issues raised above being unaddressed. NoahTalk 14:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - minimal engagement, issues remain. Hog Farm Talk 15:31, 19 January 2022 (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) 03:34, 22 January 2022 (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) 3:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [26].

Dietrich v The Queen edit

Notified: Stephen Bain, Bilby, WT:AUS, WT:LAW, diff of talk-page notice 10-09-2021

Review section edit

This is a 2005 promotion (last reviewed in 2009) that does not seem to meet the modern featured article criteria, particularly with respect to sourcing and comprehensiveness. Firstly, I'm not sure it's a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature": there are plenty of scholarly articles and books that aren't cited, e.g. [27], [28], [29], pgs. 95–98 of [30], and pg. 150 of [31], for no apparent reason. This might be excusable if the article was already very comprehensive, but it isn't: most obviously, one would expect an article about a legal case to walk through the the various opinions rendered in some detail, but the opinions of Mason/McHugh and Toohey aren't even mentioned and the rest of the "Judgment" section takes only a very cursory look at the legal reasoning. We also get very little about the historical context in which this case was decided or the legal context (e.g. previous/subsequent Australian fair-trial cases) in which it arose. The sourcing that does exist consists mainly of either citations to primary sources, such as the case itself, and newspaper articles that offer little legal analysis; the few scholarly sources used are used sparingly. Since the article hasn't been edited once since notice of these concerns was given almost two months ago, I think its featured article status should be reviewed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - basically no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 14:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC — no improvements, (difference since nomination). I agree with concerns regarding comprehensiveness. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC – concerns remain unaddressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I appreciate the effort, I do still believe this needs to go to FARC. In addition to the many stylistic issues that Sandy has mentioned below, my original concerns about sourcing and comprehensiveness haven't really been addressed. The article continues to rely very heavily on primary sources (giving rise to synthesis and other OR issues), and several cn tags remain extant. The sources I mentioned above haven't been incorporated into the article, and there's still only minimal discussion about the judgment and the broader historical/legal context. I think the article would probably need to be rewritten from the ground up if it were to be brought back to FA-level. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will work on the concerns over the next few days and see whether or not we can keep the article as WP:FA. It is a really important case in Australia, and influential worldwide. I feel it still comes close to meeting modern featured article criteria. It's well written, comprehensive, and has solid referencing. I concede however it could do with a review, I will take a look. Such-change47 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I have made subtantial changes already, significant inclusion of a few journal articles, re-wrote the introduction, expanded most sections and also the entire thing needed re-formatting with proper headings. Personlly I feel it's looking significnantly better, but I will keep at it over the weekend. We have very few legal articles as FA, I am keen to help this one stay FA!. Cheers Such-change47 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Such-change47: - I see at least part of your additions have been removed by Diannaa as copyright violations. Do NOT add copyright violations, especially not to a FA. Hog Farm Talk 15:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - wow. It's a few sentences, that I paraphrased, not closely, and provided an attribution for. There is no way i violated cooyright and this person has done this before to someone else, for copying from a court judgement which certainly is not copyright. Thousands of words i added still stand luckily. I read the copyright warning and policy really carefully. I have not breached it, and the reverter accused me of copying, which is different from paraphrasing. I am well aware that even a vandal would stand less chance of a permanent block than a copyright violator, so i take it very seriously. Such-change47 (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a source-article comparison myself later tonight, but given that Diannaa is one of our very best copyright editors, I'm inclined to trust their judgment (and yes, I can see the text added in the deleted revision, as I am an administrator). Hog Farm Talk 19:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that court cases are public domain; can we do some further checking on this? Diannaa ?? I can't see the deleted text ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Australian copyright law is way out of my comfort zone, but I would guess that they're protected by crown copyright. (That's assuming that it was only the court case that was used: the journal article Diannaa mentioned is certainly not public-domain.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks; I could not see the edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is a Crown Copyright situation. The removed material was from a block quote within the linked article, quoting the decision New South Wales v Canellis. Even if not copyrighted, it is problematic, as the direct quote taken from the court's decision was given in wikivoice with a citation to the decision itself, with no indication that it was quoted material at all. Hog Farm Talk 21:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, the Crown owns the copyright on government works (including court cases). They are protected by copyright for 50 years from publication. Many works are released under a Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY 3.0 AU)] license, but this one is not.— Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: You are totally right, Diannaa is the expert, I was wrong. i am going to quick-sharp get used to the difference between my usual academic/legal writing where attribution is all that is quired to prevent academic misconduct, and the high copyright standards of Wikipedia. @Diannaa: gave me some great tools. I will 1, take even more care and 2 after carefully drafting to ensure i steer clear of breach, use her tools to compare my work and self check for breaches to ensure i do not get flagged again. Thanks to both. Such-change47 (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such-change47, happy to see your continued work! Do you believe this star is salvageable with time, or should we proceed to the FARC phase (which does not preclude additional work)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SandyGeorgia: Having assessed the criteria i think the article has already been saved. I have added 20-30% more to the article, it has had a thorough review, journal articles added...i will continue but my thought is that its safe to stay FA. Note, i did not create this article, no vested interest in it staying. It is just that there are barely any law featured articles at all. Let us keep this one. Such-change47 (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the response and the effort! I won't be able to review until after Christmas ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime @Sandy:, a pleasure to help contribute in this way! Such-change47 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A copyedit/jargon check will be needed, attention to Wikilinking is needed, and MOS:LQ and MOS:ITALICS reviews are needed, but before that is done, I cannot make heads nor tails of the citation method, which seems to be an unnecessary mix of three different methods, with errors. DrKay might you have a look? I still don’t speak sfns well enough to know what’s wrong here.
    I believe I have cleaned up the citation errors (removing some instances of original research in the process). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such-change47, have a look at WP:WIAFA, 2b; I consolidated the short choppy sections.
  • In the “Subsequent issues” section, we have Dietrich changing his name to Hugo Rich … but the image placed well earlier in the article is confusing, as we don’t know at that point that he changed his name. Also, were his further convictions as Dietrich or as Hugo Rich?
  • “remaining condoms came out during the night” … ?
  • The WP:LEAD could benefit from expansion.
  • See MOS:ELLIPSES.
  • How is "serious offence" defined?
  • The text at the top of the High Court appeal (see WP:MSH) section is uncited, but seems to come from here. How is that not copyvio?
    • @SandyGeorgia: - The two bullet points and the sentence beginning "The Court allowed the appeal," is definitely copyvio, the rest of that chunk is either fine or from something else, so far as I can tell. The source is definitely in copyright, as it contains a copyright notice from 1992 and there is no evidence of a release here. @WP:FAR coordinators: , I really think that this should be considered for a move to FARC, given that there have already been two instances of copyright violations noted. This can be reworked and taken to FAC again, but I'm not sure that FAR is a great place to be trying to clean copyright violations out. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the copyvio and applied revision deletion, unfortunately the recent page history is a bit of a mess now; ping me if you have questions about any of the deleted diffs. Hog Farm Talk 04:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Troubling. Thanks for doing all that work, HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Extraordinary Writ mentions, the list of sources has not been incorporated, so the article still fails 1b, and relies heavily on the Court decision, without analysis.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a fair use image, which Nikkimaria might need to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this person still living? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say he has died, and this seems to indicate he has not. (Should we be incorporating the Hugo Boss info?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free images are harder to justify for living people, since it would be theoretically possible for a new one to be created or for them to release one. Given that, I would want to see a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the three Move to FARCs above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and copyvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – I appreciate the work that's been done to improve the article, but at the end of the day the sourcing/comprehensiveness concerns still remain, per my comments above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Extraordinary Writ sums it up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per EW. Hog Farm Talk 21:04, 14 January 2022 (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) 03:35, 22 January 2022 (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) 4:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [32].

Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey edit

Notified: principal author and FAC nominator not notified as they are banned, Alansohn, Neutron, WP NJ, WP Politics, WP USA, noticed Dec. 12, see below for why this is here this early

Review section edit

I was granted permission by Nikkimaria to take this one to FAR only two weeks after the notice, as this is a bit of a special case. The original FAC nominator is banned, and was found to have had a history of hoaxing/fake references. When looking into this one, I detected two instances of failed verification while checking only a single small part of the article. While the failed verification text has since been removed, it had been in the article at the time of the FAC. Given the history of the nominator and the fact that I didn't check most of the article, that is cause for concern.

Aside from the potential verifiability issues, there is also uncited text, heavy use of the state legal code where secondary sources would be better, and a weighting issue, as the 2009 election is given more detail that the next three put together. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Move to FARC; I suggest one week in FAR, and one week in FARC, at most (on the off-chance that someone wants to do a complete rewrite). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated process - needs a complete rewrite, which is probably outside the purview of FAR; we can't trust the sourcing here. Hog Farm Talk 14:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated process per above (t · c) buidhe 19:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, posthaste per the serious concerns above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated process no one is stepping forward to edit this, and if there are serious hoaxing concerns these will need to be addressed quickly. Z1720 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing (failed verification) and overreliance on primary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - needs a top-to-bottom rewrite, given the tendencies of the original FAC nominator. Hog Farm Talk 06:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references. DrKay (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – This article, in its current state, is far from meeting FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – no improvements; plenty of problems remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2022 (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) 04:07, 15 January 2022 (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) 4:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [33].

Operation Auca edit

Notified: User talk:Spangineer, User talk:Dutral, WP:1, WP:CHRISTIANITY, WP:NATIVE, WP:ECUADOR, Notice Oct2021

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it primarily sourced to non-independent sources, primarily the wives/children of the missionaries involved in the expedition and the family members who wrote the books are also missionaries. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no/minimal progress, cleanup banners are still up (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - reliance on the family members here is too heavy. With several indications in the text that parts of the relatives' writings are disputed by unaffiliated researchers, this needs rewritten, and ideally with contextualization of the relatives' claims vs other sources. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, per above. No improvements since FAR nom. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Still lacks secondary sourcing and there is orange tagging disputing the neutrality. NoahTalk 03:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist sourcing concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist maintenance tags unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 14 January 2022 (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) 04:07, 15 January 2022 (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) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [34].

History of Sheffield edit

Notified: JeremyA, WikiProject Sheffield, WikiProject Yorkshire, WikiProject History, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject United Kingdom, 2021-02-05, 2021-11-17

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements, the lede containing information that is not cited in the body, and the article needs an update with current developments. The talk page also contains a large to-do list, so the article might not be comprehensive enough. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no progress on sourcing issues (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no edits since August. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, layout, datedness and comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The issues above still stand. I see plenty of sentences that lack citations. NoahTalk 03:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist limited engagement, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist limited engagement, work still needed. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 14 January 2022 (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) 04:08, 15 January 2022 (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) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [35].

Hours of service edit

Notified: User talk:ErgoSum88, WT:TRUCKS, WT:LAW, WT:OSH, talk page notification 2021-09-20

Review section edit

This FA (2008 promotion) has some significant issues with respect to sourcing and comprehensiveness. The article is predominantly sourced to primary sources, such as regulations and government websites: never a good sign. A quick Google Scholar search finds a significant amount of secondary coverage, much of it recent, that isn't used. See [36][37][38][39][40] for just a few examples; an in-depth examination would likely find much more. The dearth of scholarly sourcing is problematic on its own, but it also results in an article that spends more time repeating the text of government regulations than it does summarizing encyclopedically the various perspectives on the subject. There are also issues with uncited text (e.g. in the "Rewriting the Hours of Service" section), bare URLs/incomplete citations, and due-weight/currency concerns noted by Hog Farm in his talk-page notice. Since there have been no significant improvements since notice was given almost three months ago, the article's featured status ought to be reviewed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no edits (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, nothing happening. Hog Farm Talk 16:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no improvements since nomination at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC – concerns have not been addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since the issues mentioned above continue to stand and the article hasn't been touched in nearly a month. NoahTalk 03:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist concerns remain, no major edits since FAR nom. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No progress: the only recent edit was Illuminati-related vandalism. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - the only "engagement" was vandalism. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 14 January 2022 (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) 04:08, 15 January 2022 (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) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [41].

Demosthenes edit

Notified: Yannismarou, SheriffIsInTown, McCronion, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Politics, 1 Dec

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about sourcing. A lot of ancient and dated sources are used instead of recent secondary literature. (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, sourcing has not been improved. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC no progress has been made on sourcing. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2022 (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) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [42].

Tropical Storm Allison edit

Notified: Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, Hurricane Noah, Jason Rees, WP Tropical Cyclones, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Houston, WP New York (state) first noticed back in May

Review section edit

As noted on the article's talk page by me and Hurricane Noah, this article relies almost exclusively on contemporaneous reports, with only three or four of the sources being from more than a year after the storm occurred. As noted on the talk page, there is also some scholarly work over this storm, which is not included. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH to be resolved, why is See also so large, and starting CCI check on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and still almost completely reliant on contemporaneous reports. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - insufficient engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I wrote the article 15 years ago. I know it could be a lot better now, and I don't intend to do the work to improve it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Since fixes aren't occurring. NoahTalk 13:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What big gaps are there outside of the copyright questions? I see some 20 year retrospectives, but not a ton of coverage to check to see if there are any big changes --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guerillero - There are some sources linked on the article's talk page. I won't be able to discuss the sources in more depth until I get back to my computer in a day or two though. Hog Farm Talk 17:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hog Farm: No worries. This just looked like low hanging fruit. I wish I could get wikicup points for this, but c'est la vie. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style (and noting attribution issues mentioned on talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist due to the standing issues raised above. NoahTalk 18:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything substantive that merits including from said scholarly work? Demotion over that alone seems excessive if the net effect it has on the article is small. YE Pacific Hurricane 08:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot related to meteorology, impact, and aftermath here plus I believe Hog Farm mentioned more on the article's talk page, however, I haven't checked through any of those. NoahTalk 13:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hog Farm mentioned that he is traveling right now for the New Years’ weekend, so maybe hold on to hear from him; I believe he has journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Mostly) back in the saddle for the rest of the week; noting I've seen this and will take a deeper look into this once I've got caught up on a couple other things. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gang, sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, but I'll give a quickie starter run before I go out of state. Going through the sources listed on talk:

This has some additional details about the affects on the TX transportation/infrastructure system, and gives different rainfall figures for Houston than the article seems to (although our article only gives totals for selected points)
can't access
can't access, but hopefully somebody can (try WP:RSX?). Our content about the damage to the Texas Medical Center is sourced to a commercial report produced within a year of the storm; a posthumous diagnosis would be a vast sourcing improvement there, as the current source is heavily reliant on soon after the fact estimates
This book devotes an entire chapter to the effects in Texas and refers to very heavy rainfall on June 8 as the "knockout punch", while our article doesn't seem to give much importance to the 8th, specifies that the floodwaters were 10 feet deep in Texas at times, and it disputes the claim of "and one in an elevator" stating that while this was initially suggested, it's since been suggested she didn't make it to the elevator. It also states that Houston University lost $35 million in library books, which seems significant, as well.
this discusses the use of radar and a flood alert system in tracking the storm, which doesn't seem to be included
I can only get the abstract for this, but it seems to discuss disease problems in the storm's aftermath and looks MEDRS; likely worth a RSX try

I'm not sure which sources Hurricane Noah thought most significant from their search link; hopefully they can take a further look at that. What I'm really seeing here is that this article relies very heavily on sources almost contemporaneous to the storm, and the two decades since have provided a better perspective of what is significant about this storm. I'm mainly finding sources for the Texas effects, but that seems to have been some of the most impactful stuff. There's definitely chunks of sourcing that can/should be replaced by more recent stuff that has a better perspective. This isn't my region of expertise, so others may know of additional useful sources. @SandyGeorgia, Yellow Evan, and Guerillero: Hog Farm Talk 06:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm In the ones I linked, I saw similar sources, including ones for LA as well such as (not exclusive) this. I had seen additional meteorological ones such as [43] and [44] (check for more). Overall, google scholar has a decent amount worth investigating. NoahTalk 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues by Hog Farm and Noah unaddressed, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - This is a good example of the difference between GA sourcing and FA sourcing. The sourcing here is just lacking in several places. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 14 January 2022 (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) 04:08, 15 January 2022 (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) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [45].

John Frusciante edit

Notified: Grim-Gym, NSR77, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Electronic music, 2020-11-26, 2021-10-03

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is lots of information in the lede and infobox that is not included or is not cited in the article body. It also needs a knowledgeable editor to copyedit the article and remove bloating. RetiredDuke left some examples on the talk page in November 2020, which do not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It also cites a few unreliable sources: invisible-movement.net (an unofficial fan site), formspring.me (looks like a web forum), groundguitar.com looks like a blog, and as of the revision current right now there's a cite to Wikipedia. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one reminds me of how many good music editors we've lost over the years. A lot of them had poor experiences at FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment have to agree with the feeling that this article isn't in great shape; I'm seeing a lot of shaggy prose and some missing citations. Popcornfud (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, none of the main editors have touched this 2007 promotion in years, one edit since FAR initiated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming FAR is working at a more brisk pace these days. I don't mind working on this article but it would be at a leisurely pace. Perhaps it's best to delist it and I can bring it back to FAC some time in the future. --Laser brain (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Laser, that is very good news. Would you rather keep the FAR open as you work, or delist and re-submit? FAR is very leisurely these days, so as long as work is ongoing, I suspect the Coords will respect your wishes first. We all know you can do the job, if you undertake it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain and Z1720: ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Slow progress. I've been comparing the current version with the FAC version and, in some cases, reverting to more preferable text. I've found at least one instance of close paraphrasing from the original version so I've ordered a couple sources. --Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No Laser brain gracing the pages of Wikipedia since 20 November :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Work strikes at will and without mercy :) --Laser brain (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain: given your RL commitments do you foresee being able to continue work on this, or does it make more sense to proceed to FARC? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC – Since it seems like no effort is currently being made I vote we go ahead and move to FARC. – zmbro (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 24 December 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) 4:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [46].

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 edit

Notified: MONGO, Wsiegmund, Environment, Climate change, WP Geology, WP Glaciers, talk page notification Nov 5 2021 from broader discussion

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been sufficently kept up-to-date, despite ongoing research. Newer research that has been added, hasn't been integrated well into the article ("a 20xx study", in "February 2020, it was reported". This article will need quite some love to be brought back up to FA standards. See more on talk. Femke (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Femke has been commenting for 2 years about the article but I do not see one edit by them outside the article talk to address the alleged issues.--MONGO (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • THat's not relevant, the only questions we're trying to answer here is "does it meet the FA criteria?" and if not, "will it be improved to meet the FA criteria during the FAR?" (t · c) buidhe 11:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, one inconsequential edit since FAR nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, has been stalled out for most of 2021. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were comments that this article should be mainpaged a second time...yet zero efforts by the commentators to "fix" the alleged issues. Now it will never again be mainpaged...congratulations! Real smart move!--MONGO (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry this is frustrating. For a main page appearance, the article would have needed an update anyway. This FAR is another attempt to find volunteers to take over your good work (or for you to try and find the time). Femke (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Some improvements in December, but nothing major. This will require a lot of fixing up in order to be FA again. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 January 2022 (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) 04:01, 8 January 2022 (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) 4:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [47].

Chaco Culture National Historical Park edit

Notified: Saravask, WP Indigenous peoples of NA, WP Archaeology, WP Architecture, WP Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WP National Register of Historic Places, WP Protected areas, WP New Mexico, WP Historic sites, talk page notice 2021-12-16

Review section edit

This is a 2007 promotion that was noticed almost a year ago, has had no involved contributors for over three years, and appears to be abandoned. None of the issues raised have been addressed: uncited text with citation needed tags as old as November 2014; HarvRef errors; MOS:SANDWICHing and poor image layout; See also should be evaluated with the need for each link explained or by working the links in to the article; citations do not have a consistent date format; References section, and a Sources section that appear to be the same thing; considerable outdated text and MOS:CURRENT issues, samples: In the 2002–03 fiscal year, the park's total annual operating budget was $1.434 million; Current park policy mandates partial restoration of excavated sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no progress in addressing issues (t · c) buidhe 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC – the valid concerns above have not been addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC I'm concerned that there has been no progress to address the citation needed tags or any other issues. Z1720 (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, essentially no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review include sourcing, datedness and style. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – nothing's happening here, and the significant issues with uncited text, formatting, etc. still remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 17:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - sourcing concerns have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 14:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues remain, no recent progress. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (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) 04:01, 8 January 2022 (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) 4:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [48].

Corinthian War edit

Notified: Robth, पाटलिपुत्र, WP MILHIST, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Iran, noticed in August

Review section edit

As noted by T8612 on the article's talk page, this article is too reliant on the ancient source of Xenophon to the neglect of some modern scholarly works. Additionally, there are bits of uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sadly I think that this needs WP:BLOWITUP. It is essentially a start class article, with so much un- and badly sourced material that muc of it is even a good starting point. A good read, but nowhere near FA standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Nothing to speak of happening. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC no edits (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist minimal progress on fixing issues (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no sustained engagement to address the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sourcing needs overhauled and improvements have not occurred there. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist while there were some edits to the article in December, these did not address the sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I might work on this in the distant future. T8612 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the above issues. NoahTalk 03:37, 2 January 2022 (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) 04:01, 8 January 2022 (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) 4:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC) [49].

Brabham edit

Notified: 4u1e, DH85868993, Pyrope, WP Motorsport, WP Formula One, WP Australia, WP Automobiles, talk notifications 2021-01-18 2021-10-31

Review section edit

As mentioned in the talk page notification that is almost a year old, this 2006 Featured article has considerable uncited text, appears not to have been updated since 2010, and there are many statements that do not have as of dates or time context, yet use older sources. Z1720 points out "there is no post-2015 information in the history section. I am also concerned about WP:OVERSECTION in the Racing History - other section". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another point for consideration: the section "Brabham Racing (2014–)" is nonsense, based solely on an old announcement. Announcements in themselves are not notable, the actual event is. Since it didn't come to fruition, this entire section is fluff and should be removed. IMO the lead should even revert to the past tense (Brabham was...) since there is little to suggest that this currently is an active organization. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The story of this organisation essentially ends in 1992. Anything after that is probably irrelevant, perhaps beyond a few notes about what any individuals who were involved with Brabham went on to do after that time. I don't think it matters if this article relies on older sources (provided they are reliable), as there is very little to say about the team after 1992. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the article is called Brabham, not Motor Racing Developments. The later use of the name Brabham is relevant, but I agree the structure needs to be reconsidered. I would move the post-1992 events to a new section like "Revival attempts". 5225C (talk • contributions) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section called "Revival attempts" might be more suitable, but it needs to be concrete. The 2014 speculative announcement by a stakeholder is nothing more than marketing buzz (unfortunately this is a problem across WP – many editors fall for this, quickly adding such fluff because it is repeated over and over in the media). WP:CRYSTAL says: "take special care to avoid advertising", "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place", and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product (or business) announcements". Since no actual revival has taken place, the lead should be in the past tense. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brabham Racing is actually active in European GT racing with the BT62 and BT63, so in this case it's not a matter of marketing fluff but just out-of-date. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention of the fact that Jack Brabham's son has run a similarly named team could be warranted if suitable sourcing was available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a go, listing the team's plans and its entries briefly. Sourcing could do with a bit of work if it was in a standalone article but I think it's enough to confirm that the name has been used by successor organisations. 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why “Brabham” is used as the article title is WP:COMMON. The lead and the infobox however make it clear that the article does deal with Motor Racing Developments specifically.Tvx1 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, using the common name invites coverage of how that common name has later been used. 5225C (talk • contributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much ... but I have unstruck your strike of my comment, as the reviewer who enters the comment strikes it once they've revisited. I'll check that over mañana and strike if all is done; pooped out for the day now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone have any of the book sources? It appears as if citations are put at the end of paras where not everything in the para is in the source. I (temporarily) altered some paras as indications, but this makes me worry about original research relative to book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HumanBodyPiloter5, Tvx1, and 5225C: I have resolved the image issues, but there are sourcing matters that need to be looked at (does anyone have the books)? And overlinking needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having looked over the article I can't really see the issues this article has getting resolved unless someone has access to the books. Sadly I don't think this article is going to be able to be kept at a featured level without that. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this article is unlikely to maintain featured status unless someone has the books. At this point, it is unclear which parts of any of the paragraphs can be sourced to the books cited. We should probably be proceeding to the FARC stage here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any of the books already cited, but I do have a copy of the more recent Brabham (Tony Davis, Ákos Armont) which should be able to verify some details. I don't have the time to sift through the article but if you tag passages of concern I'm happy to check if they're in it. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, being in Australia I'm happy to check the libraries for copies if necessary, but I think it's worth giving it a shot with alternative sources. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has a mixed citation style (some parenthetical, now deprecated) and others using ref tags, and some of the parentheticals are not listed as sources. I cannot decipher from which source this comes, so an “as of” date can be added, or the reader can check whether it is still true. And the prose is repetitive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brabham became the first man to win a Formula One world championship race in a car bearing his own name. Only his former teammate, Bruce McLaren, has since matched the achievement. It was the first in a run of four straight wins for the Australian veteran. Brabham won his third title in 1966, becoming the only driver to win the Formula One World Championship in a car carrying his own name (cf Surtees, Hill and Fittipaldi Automotive).
    I think I am misreading the citation style; some of the names in parens may actually be racers ... not parenthetical citations ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middlebridge needs a link, even if WP:RED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C what makes this a reliable source, and what makes it high enough quality for a Featured article? Add which parts of that para is it citing? [50] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just copied it from Amati's article since it apparently sourced that claim (3 DNQs). Replaced with another Motor Sport source. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured articles require higher quality sources. The article was originally written to some books that we should be using. We have to take care not to source the article to mirrors that wrote their content after this article was written in 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also a problem with the second source in that diff. This article was featured in 2006, and that article was written in 2017. Is it a high quality source? What part of the para is it verifying? How do we know it's not mirroring Wikipedia? We should be checking the original books used rather than retrofitting lower quality sources to a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Motor Sport is the definition of a high quality motorsports source. If you would like to challenge one of the best-established and well-respected publications in motorsport then I'm going to have to ask for some more detailed reasoning. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur there. Motor Sport magazine is a highly-respected outlet that's been running for nearly a century. It's highly unlikely that they would just copy stuff from Wikipedia. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, lost my battery midway on that one. OK, that source is citing one minor part of the para; so good. The earlier source is not the kind we should be adding to FAs (but I gather it is gone now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, that was a careless mistake on my part. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob; can we slow down and locate the books? My concerns are beyond individual sentences here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. I'll put a breakdown of them below. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow ... so, seeing that many that may be hard to find, do you believe we should keep this FAR open? Or should we proceed to FARC? What's the prognosis ? Are you willing to undertake source checking? Either way, the article is already considerably improved ... regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm optimistic, I think we have access to the major sources through Archive.org and the ones we can't get are more minor sources that we should be able to replace. We don't have a deadline and I am happy to try and fix the article's sourcing issues. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so if you are going for it, that would mean hold in FAR, work ongoing (the Coords need to know as we are approaching the two-week mark for the FAR phase). Thanks for taking this on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5225C, we're going backwards here. If you remove a cn tag from an entire paragraph, while adding a source that only cites one sentence, we're going to end up worse off than we were before we started, because we won't know what is cited and what is not. You've done that twice. This source, for example, does not mention the Argentine. What are you citing with the second citation? Instead of removing a cn tag, you should be moving it so we know what still remains to be cited. Since most of it theoretically came from the books originally cited, might it not be better to locate them before retrofitting partial citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I work on a claim-by-claim basis when sourcing, which after all is how this is meant to be done. When I see a cn tag, I source the claim that has been tagged. If you would like me to find sources, which I am willing and eager to do, then I ask you be more specific with what you want sourced. If you intend to use in-line clean-up tags, then you need to use them to indicate claims in line. Otherwise you should be using clean-up banners. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I separated entire paragraphs that were unsourced. When you remove a cn from an entire uncited paragraph, and cite only the last sentence in that paragraph, we are left with the impression that the citation applies to the entire sentence. Did you see my post on this page at 22:03 describing the problem ? A cn at the end of an uncited paragraph means the entire para is uncited. If you remove it, cite the entire para. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brabham source accessibility
Source Access level
Bamsey, Ian; Benzing, Enrico; Staniforth, Allan; Lawrence, Mike (1988). The 1000 BHP Grand Prix cars. G T Foulis & Co Ltd. ISBN 0-85429-617-4. Need to find a copy
Brabham, Jack; Nye, Doug (2004), The Jack Brabham Story, Motorbooks International, ISBN 0-7603-1590-6 Copy in the WA State Library
Collings, Timothy (2004). The Piranha Club. Virgin Books. ISBN 0-7535-0965-2. Archive.org
Drackett, Phil (1985). Brabham—Story of a racing team. Arthur Baker Ltd. ISBN 0-213-16915-0. Need to find a copy
Gill, Barrie, ed. (1976). The World Championship 1975 – John Player Motorsport yearbook 1976. Queen Anne Press Ltd. ISBN 0-362-00254-1. Need to find a copy
Hamilton, Maurice, ed. (1983). Autocourse 1983–1984. Hazleton Publishing. ISBN 0-905138-25-2. Need to find a copy
Henry, Alan (1985). Brabham, the Grand Prix Cars. Osprey. ISBN 0-905138-36-8. Need to find a copy
Hodges, David (1998). A-Z of Formula Racing Cars 1945–1990. Bay View books. ISBN 1-901432-17-3. Archive.org
Lawrence, Mike (1999). Brabham+Ralt+Honda: The Ron Tauranac story. Motor Racing Publications. ISBN 1-899870-35-0. Need to find a copy
Lovell, Terry (2004). Bernie's Game. Metro Books. ISBN 1-84358-086-1. Archive.org
Nye, Doug (1986). Autocourse history of the Grand Prix car 1966–85. Hazleton publishing. ISBN 0-905138-37-6. Copy in the WA State Library
Roebuck, Nigel (1986). Grand Prix Greats. Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 0-85059-792-7. Archive.org
Tremayne, David; Hughes, Mark (2001) [1998]. The Concise Encyclopedia of Formula One (updated ed.). Parragon. ISBN 0-7525-6735-7. Archive.org (2002 and 2000, not 2001 edition)
Unique, (Various). Brabham – the man and the machines. Unique Motor Books. ISBN 1-84155-619-X. Need to find a copy

As you can see from my table, a handful of the books we're looking for can be found online at Archive.org, and a few are in the WA State Library system. How accessible they are I don't know, but they're on the catalogue. Many aren't accessible, but given a few have been discussed online (e.g. the John Player yearbook) I might be able to convince someone to send me a scanned copy. Some might be entirely out of reach unless we find someone with a copy, either through WP:F1 or WP:RX. Still, I hold hope that they can be replaced. Brabham was/is not a small or obscure subject, there are many reputable publications and if we can't use these sources there's nothing stopping us from finding alternatives that are more accessible. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5225C update? There have been no edits since 2 December; what are your thoughts on timing of being able to finish up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say I think it's quite unlikely I'll find the time for a project of this scale in the immediate future. Unless another editor is able to take it on, I don't think I'll be able to get it done in a timely manner, which is quite disappointing to me because I would like to see the article restored to full FA status. I suppose the only thing to do now is either find someone who does have the available time or to delist the article. 5225C (talk • contributions) 13:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, so sorry to hear that. Well, the upside is that you can take it to FAC yourself when you do find the time, and get a new bronze star. Thanks for the effort so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per 5225C feedback above (moving to FARC does not preclude further work happening in that phase). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - progress stalled out at the beginning of the month and the issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist progress has stalled, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 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) 04:02, 8 January 2022 (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) 7:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC) [51].

Siege of Malakand edit

Notified: User talk:SGGH, User talk:Raymond Palmer (only editors with > 2% contribs), WT:MILHIST, WT:INB, WT:PAK, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Afghanistan Sep 2021 notice

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because per my talk page notice, almost all the sources Churchill, Hobday and Elliott-Lockhart were part of the British military force in this battle, so this article is majority primary-sourced Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious delist - Entirely dependent on primary sources. Factual inaccuracies are abound. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    TrangaBellam please see the instructions at the top of the FAR page; Keep and Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying issues to be addressed (such as specific examples of "factual inaccuracies"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - problematic usage of participant sources abound.
    • "This led to confusion amongst the Pashtun forces, "like ants in a disturbed ant–hill" as observed Blood" - I've written enough articles about battles to know that one side's "confusion of the enemy" is the other side's "orderly retreat". This needs a secondary source
    • "the British advanced farther into Pashtun territory and engaged a force of "several thousand"" - When possible, strengths should be sourced to secondary sources, not members of the opposing army
    • I see that Pashtun losses are only sourced to a British participant, a secondary source is most certainly needed for this.
  • These are only a few examples, but with almost the entire battle section sourced to British participants, this isn't sourced well enough for FA. Secondary sources would be needed for a better understanding of Pashtun strength, movements, motivations, and losses. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC no efforts so far to fix deficiencies (t · c) buidhe 07:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sourcing needs overhauled. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist sourcing concerns still remain. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 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/January_2022&oldid=1069135688"