Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Palladian architecture edit

Notified: Bishonen, Conte Giacomo, Wetman, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2021-03-07, 2022-05-30

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous statements and paragraphs that are missing inline citations. Also, the "North American Palladianism" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last point was easily fixed! Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the lack of inline citations is the only grounds of concern, it should be a pretty simple fix. Will get on to it shortly. KJP1 (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this have been notified to the article talk? Yes, it should. User:Z1720, please handle. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: I added the feature article review template to the top of this article's talk page with this edit. Is this what is meant by "notified to the article talk"? If not, which step at WP:FAR was missed when I made this nomination? Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? If people miss that from their watchlist, who ever sees those? I certainly hadn't. Your previous post on talk there concluded "... If no one addresses the above soon, it might be submitted to WP:FAR. Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)". You didn't think that should at least be updated?? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I'm going to ping @WP:FAR coordinators: in this discussion. Hog Farm notified the article in March 2021 (aka step 1 of WP:FAR's instructions) and the article was placed on WP:FARGIVEN. I felt that I gave a second notice with this comment on the article talk page in May 2022 (I put the wrong year at the top, which I have now corrected) and indicated as such on FARGIVEN with this edit. Typically, step 1 of an FAR does not require a notification to editor's talk pages. Is there anyone else that could have been done to make this clearer? Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, Hog Farm very properly notified article talk, to which section you added a month ago. But you did not update that section when you recently actually began the FAR. So, yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Per step 2 of WP:FAR, I added the FAR template to the top of the article talk page with this edit. The instructions do not require additional notices on the article's talk page. Nevertheless, I have added a notice with this edit. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - We’ve moved from 38 citations (12 June) to 108 (and rising), and increased the number of book sources from 16 to 37. Every paragraph is now cited, I think! Where I couldn’t source a statement, e.g. Palladian adaptations to suit Northern European climates, I’ve removed it. I’ve also tried to standardise the referencing - although I may not of caught absolutely everything as I’ve been working with a referencing style that I’m not really comfortable with, far preferring {{sfn}}; added ISBNs/OCLCs, and split the footnotes from the references. While there’s certainly more that could be done, can you/the coordinators let me know if this is sufficient to take the article off the FAR list. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps anything removed as unsourced could be noted on the talk page, in case sources can be found. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note re moving to FARC: Following KJP1's recent very impressive citation and content expansions, which I closely and happily followed, this is clearly about there. Without wanting to inhibit KJP1's parade, bravo. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil - Not at all! It’s good to see you and your support, here and at the article, is greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine man, I only meant to commend, there is abvs a lot more that could be added. Its fascinating stuff, although it get as a bit boring when you talk about the American follies. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”American follies”! Don’t let Wetman hear you. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to KJP1 for all his work here. I think this can be closed now. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said, imo User:Z1720 is a cool (and in my experience very helpful) head and would like to get input from them. Also, of course from Nikki.Ceoil (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All though its a clear pass from me. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues beginning 28 June moved to

Unresolved from the moved commentary is at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Irish Palladian architecture, this passage:

So much of Dublin was built in the 18th century that it set a Georgian stamp on the city; however, due to poor planning and poverty, Dublin was until recently one of the few cities where fine 18th-century housing could be seen in ruinous condition.[103] Elsewhere in Ireland, during and following the Irish War of Independence and the subsequent civil war, very large numbers of country houses were abandoned to ruin or destroyed.[104][105][106]
  • I'm missing how any of this relates to Palladianism.
  • If retained or rewritten, can "until recently" be defined more explictly? The source is 2005 ... through the 20th century ? @Ceoil: on this part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was called Inner City Renewal, in the mid 60s, and again in late 70s & early 80s. They knocked all the (then tenement) houses and moved the people out to highrises in the outer suburbs. See Ballymun]. Ceoil (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would help with adding time context (if there is a usable source), but how does it relate to Palladianism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that it does. The issue is still highly emotive here and suspect was stuck in there...because TRUTH. Would remove claim. Ceoil (talk)
Done, I hope. You both right that it's not directly related to Palladianism, but it does give context to 18th-century architecture in Dublin. Have moved to a footnote, which I hope works for all. User:KJP1 (Talk) 10:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, now its out but in, which works for me. Ceoil (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two houses in the United States from the English colonial period that can be definitively attributed to designs from I quattro libri dell'architettura[citation needed] are: ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Can't find a source for "the only two" claim, so have reworded. KJP1 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, "so that the Hammond-Harwood House remains the only pure and pristine example of direct modelling in modern America. [2]"
    I don't find that in the source
    An independent source should be used to cite this
    Is there no Palladianism in Canada, Mexico, or South America? That is, does this mean to say "in America", or "in the United States" or "in North America"?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tweaked wording and added an independent cite from the Society of Architectural Historians. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency? Add all, or remove all ? Why do we need "near Charleston", when others aren't specified to cities? In Virginia and Carolina, the Palladian style is found in numerous Tidewater plantation houses, such as Stratford Hall,[123] Westover Plantation[124] and Drayton Hall near Charleston.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done; ping me when you are ready for me to revisit, and we can then expedite this up to the other FARsters (Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm). Only new comments are in this section, with some stragglers at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to review this as if it was an FAC, although I will fix smaller concerns myself. Please note that I have no speciality in this area, so consider this a non-expert prose review. Anything that I think I can't fix, usually because I am unfamiliar with the topic, are listed below:

  • "Palladianism flowered briefly in England in the early 17th century," I think flowered is too much into MOS:IDIOM. Would developed or flourished be a better word?
Done - "flourished" is indeed better. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reaction set in from the early 18th century," -> "Reaction to Baroque set in" to clarify what the reaction was to?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jefferson's own Monticello in Virginia." -> "Jefferson's Monticello residence in Virginia."?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his hands the visual inheritance of Palladio's example became increasingly codified" in his hands feels like another idiom. Maybe, "his writing caused the visual inheritance of Palladio's example to become increasingly codified"
Done - sort of! See what you think? KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the 'Collector' Earl of Arundel," I think Collector should be in double quotes?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but was never truly to the English taste," -> "but did not appeal to the English"?
Done - sort of! Again, see what you think? KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most favoured among patrons was the four-volume Vitruvius Britannicus by Campbell.[60] Campbell was both an architect and publisher.[61][n 12] It was essentially a book containing architectural prints of British buildings, and inspired by the great architects from Vitruvius to Palladio;" -> "The most favoured among patrons was the four-volume Vitruvius Britannicus by Campbell,[60] an architect and publisher.[61][n 12] It contained architectural prints of British buildings, inspired by the great architects from Vitruvius to Palladio;"
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added ALT text to images per MOS:ALT. Please review and change if necessary.
Z1720 - Many thanks, for these and for the review - greatly appreciated. Mainly actioned, but two queries. Can you let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments. Please ping when these have been reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the article again and didn't notice other prose concerns. Some of the sources don't have ISBN numbers, though a Google search finds one. Should these be added to the references? Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - I’ve added an OCLC to the Ruhl, good spot. However, I’m not seeing any other gaps. Are we talking of books, such as Summerson, where later editions have ISBNs, but the edition used predated them? KJP1 (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On a general note, we should only add an ISBN if that is to the version used (that is, corresponds to page numbers given). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My concerns are addressed, I have no more issues with this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC (Keep featured), wonderful and exhaustive work from KJP1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe and Hog Farm: I'm happy here, Z1720 has been through, and lengthy commentary, all addressed, is moved to the FAR talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Ceoil: for new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, apologies, I know you don’t like pings! Just so I’m clear, do we now wait for input from the other FAR reviewers? There’s nothing else I need to do in the interim? All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We wait for other Close without FARC (keep) declarations, or other reviews. Coords also like to hear whether involved (eg you) participants believe the article is now at standard (that is, you get to !vote). In the interim, you continue responding to any new queries (all of my stuff is done). Don't worry that I don't like pings; now that I've sent their notifications to email only, they no longer make me crazy (er). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 a new note from me: there are some items left over in the lead that are not contained in the body of the article. The lead must summarize the article, and some of the text that has been removed from the article is still in the lead, and uncited. Please revisit the entire lead: one sample is "This immense mansion outside London was one of the first, and among the most influential, of Campbell's Palladian designs." Not sure about the flowery wording here: "After the Stuart Restoration, the architectural landscape was dominated by the proponents of the more flamboyant English Baroque." So, a doublecheck that the lead is still in line with the body is needed. Another: "but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War" is not precisely what the body of the article says. Check flowery language in lead, eg, "to develop a new architectural style for the fledgling American Republic." I don't believe this is in the body, or cited, either: "while its inspirer is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

have tweaked the lead
  • "immense", "fledgling" - words are now gone, although a case could be made for immense
  • "flamboyant" is fine in this context; "flourished" also - both common terms in the literature
  • "is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects" - surely past tense, ie "as having been among the world’s most influential..." Ceoil (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But where is that cited in the body? I'm concerned that, with all the changes in the body, the lead is no longer in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not, I was wilting flowers only. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added a mention of Wanstead House in the body, to match the mention in the lead. Palladio’s influence/reputation is mentioned, and cited, in the Legacy section. When (if?!) we finish the FAR, and the article’s stable, I’ll recheck the lead, and the TFA blurb, to make sure they are all consistent. KJP1 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better to review the lead sooner rather than later, else others will hesitate to declare a keep. The blurb needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't understand this: The White House is more neoclassical than Palladian, particularly the South façade, which closely resembles James Wyatt's 1790 design for Castle Coole, also in Ireland. Castle Coole is, in the words of the architectural commentator Gervase Jackson-Stops, "A culmination of the Palladian traditions, yet strictly neoclassical in its chaste ornament and noble austerity." - Is Castle Coole neoclassical or Palladian? The sentence seems to change track mid-way though. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil - It's a bit tricky. Castle Coole is a transition between Palladianism and Neoclassicism, and the White House is definitely more the latter, but with elements of the former. I've tried to reword the para. to make this clearer.KJP1 (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 - The rewording works for my simple brain. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

  • I'm unconvinced of the direct relevance of fn 1
Done - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based in Virginia, The Center for Palladian Studies in America, Inc. was founded as a non-profit in 1979 to research and promote understanding of Palladio's influence in the United States" - I'd recommend against using the organization's own materials to source it here, as a secondary source would be a better indicator of the organization being significant enough to mention here.
Done - by removal, it never quite fitted and I suspect was added by a drive-by editor. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly in areas under colonial rule" - from the context, I'm assuming British colonial rule would be a better phrasing?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to question the CSHIHE source but am convinced by the defense of the source on the FAR talk. I think I'm at close without FARC, as none of these were really dealbreakers for me and its fairly obvious that minor improvements are going to continue even after the FAR closes. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm - Thanks for the review and the support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterate my Close without FARC, and Z1720 is also a Keep (above). Thank you KJP1! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, without having followed all the ins and outs, I think a FARC is not needed. I wonder what plans Z1720 has for the rest of your summer, Sandy? Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to get the rest of the Very Oldest unreviewed FAs looked at; any help appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find ways to keep Sandy busy. @Johnbod: you should join me by nominating some FARs and reviewing some articles. ;) Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't be doing that (FARs), though I do review FACs and, you know, write stuff. Maybe you should try sticking with your FAR noms rather than heading for the hills and leaving Sandy to do all the work. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, Z1720 amply carries their share of the load; we all try to pitch in for each other here at FAR, as everyone has the usual IRL issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining KJP1, in trying to keep the lead in sync with the body, might we work further on the following?

  • Palladianism flourished briefly in England in the early 17th century, led by Inigo Jones, but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.

The article says:

  • These follow the great success of Jones's Palladian designs for the Queen's House at Greenwich, the first English Palladian house, and the Banqueting House at Whitehall, the uncompleted royal palace in London of Charles I.

Those were all 1610s to 20-ish, correct? Then,

  • Palladian designs advocated by Inigo Jones were too closely associated with the court of Charles I to survive the turmoil of the English Civil War.
... which began in 1642.
It doesn't seem that what Jones introduced really had time to "flourish" and become fully accepted and developed; rather it died out somewhat quickly. Can we find a way to recast that thought to avoid implying, via flourish, that what Jones originally introduced was widely popular, accepted, developed, and used? What eventually became widely popular developed later, as the style evolved somewhat from Palladio's original work.
Perhaps recast the entire sentence to something along the lines of:
  • English court architect Inigo Jones introduced Palladian designs to England early in the 17th century, but his brief success, and the development of Palladianism, was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.

I'm sure you can find a more eloquent way to address this, and we need not hold up the FAR over it, but perhaps this can be fine tuned? The original word was "flowered", implying something that briefly blossomed but quickly died. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 we still have the problematic flourished in the lead, when it hadn't actually flourished, rather blossomed for a brief few decades before dying on the vine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - User:Tryptofish will be clearer than I on the horticultural difference between “flourished” and “blossomed”. I think it’s ok. It did flourish, albeit briefly, as the court architecture of James I and Charles I. Then it died, as the pushy Baroque elbowed its way centre-stage. Then it blossomed again under Burlington. Then it was superseded by the, very aggressive, Gothic Revival. Now it flourishes once more in a million McMansions. Sic transit gloria mundi! KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'd rather not treat the word literally as a horticultural concept, because it isn't one. I thought hard about it, and I've been unable to capture in a single word something that would satisfy both of you. If you don't mind making it more than one word, I'll suggest: "Palladianism briefly came to prominence in England...". (I'll keep watching here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably work, although I suspect it didn't actually even come to widespread "prominence" then (I think prominence implies widespread?) ... would the wording I suggested above, at 19:31 21 July ... not work? Or at least provide a starting point for something more eloquent ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm genuinely unsure where to place it on the scale of "flourished" → "was a flash in the pan". I recognize the need to avoid WP:PEACOCK, but I'm pretty sure that it was considerably more than just a transient moment. The word "briefly" does limit it. I personally don't object to flowered or blossomed, or perhaps "emerged" could also work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We could go back to Giano's earlier flowered (but readers may not understand the nuance that we now see), or we could use Trypto's emerged suggestion, dropping the "briefly" ... Palladianism emerged in England in the early 17th century, ... need more opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't any earlier Palladianism, I think that "emerged" without "briefly" would be an ideal solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we don't hear from KJP1, I'll make that edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’re in danger of getting hung up on a detail. I think flourished is fine, but if others prefer emerged… KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did it ... still feel that "flourished" is subtly wrong and misses Giano's earlier intent of "flowering" (grew, blossomed, died) ... we need some more declarations so the FAR Coords can wrap this up. We have only two formal declarations on the page, from Z1720 and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve attempted to fine tune both the lead and the TFA blurb, to match the changes made to the article through what I think has been a very productive FAR. Thanks to all who contributed, and particularly to SandyGeorgia for her exceptionally detailed and helpful review. While there’s always something that can be further improved, I hope we’ve collectively done enough both to close out the FAR and allow for the article’s TFA appearance in August. And finally, thanks to User:Giano, who began the article and whose writings on architectural subjects have contributed so much to Wikipedia. KJP1 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll go down in history for this one; bringing the article up to today's requirements, while still retaining Giano's spirit and voice. Exceptionally well done (kudos to Sandy also). Ceoil (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What a wonderful FAR collaboration. Thanks to all. @Gog the Mild: to let him know this looks ready for TFA, although the final FAR bookkeeping isn't yet in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 13, 2022. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Conform, Retain, Whatever apparently my previous comment wasn't formal enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia - Sandy, I think we’ve got you, User:Z1720, JohnBod, Ceoil, User:Hog Farm and me, if I’m allowed a vote!, favouring Close. Is there anything we can do to wrap it up? I’m conscious it’s due on the main page next month and it would be good to know it’s ready to go. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria usually goes through on Friday or Saturday ... not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you are particularly worried (that is, travel or other commitments), you could ping the FAR Coords for an earlier look ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 27 July 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [3].

Chicxulub crater edit

Notifications
Notified: WikiProject Geology, talk page notification (none given)
Noting for User:Hemiauchenia the additional notifications to: WP Mexico, WP Astronomy, WP Dinosaurs, WP Extinction, WP Palaeontology SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I will also notify (from the tools) these editors who have been recently active on the article Peter M. Brown and Vsmith (User:Hemiauchenia please note that the goal of FAR is to cast a wide net to hopefully bring in editors who may be interested in improving the article, hence the FAR instructions encouraging the use of the tools). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also notified User:Iskander1317, who has made some recent substantial contributions to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All set now (when you notify on your own behalf, you don't have to add your name to the subst, by the way). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, please notify the other WikiProjects listed on the talk page and major contributors such as the FAC nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC nominator has already been notified. None of the other Wikiprojects are really relevant as far as the article content goes. Feel free to notify the other projects and major contributiors as you see fit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia the notifications have not been completed. I was setting up to do them for you, but there are bigger issues with this nomination. First, there was no talk page notification of a pending FAR. Second, when you added the FAR to WP:URFA/2020A, you might have noticed that David Fuchs had indicated a willingness to work on this article. And yet, Fuchs is not noticed. Did you ping them before the nomination? My recommendation would be to put this nomination on hold if David Fuchs is still intending to work on the article, so for now, I have not completed the missing notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you do a FAR nomination, please use the subst'd suggestion in the FAR instructions, which helps assure that interested editors understand the process when arriving here. (See my addition here.) In this case, you can notify by adding the following, with a heading, on relevant pages: {{subst:FARMessage|Chicxulub crater}} ~~~~ The FAR instructions also tell you how to use the tools to locate interested editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs does not WP:OWN this highly trafficked article that he worked on over a decade ago. I am the author of a substantial proportion of the articles current content. The whole idea that a non FA quality article should be kept at FA because somebody made a vague promise to work on it is silly. Either it is FA quality or it is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hemiauchenia:, the goal of FAR is to find editors that are willing to bring FAs back to FA standards, similar to how your edits earlier in January brought the article closer to FA standards. The talk page notice in step 1 is to find out if any talkpage watchers are willing to bring the article back to standards. Informing Wikiprojects, even if they are not really relevant to the article, is important because editors who watch those Wikiprojects might be willing to improve the article. Can you ensure that the Wikiprojects are notified? If no one steps forward to improve the article, then it might be delisted, but I think the delisting process won't start unless Wikiprojects are notified. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Hemiauchenia had followed FAR standard practice so I'd have had a heads-up before this, not to mention following basic courtesy and notifying me when filing the FAR rather than me having to hear about it secondhand. As is, I'm not going to be able to access my research databases for the next few weeks but should be able to work on it after then. Wretchskull also expressed in interest in working on the article, so I don't think it makes sense to close down the FAR over procedural missteps, though I hope Hemiauchenia can learn to be less needlessly confrontational and more collaborative in the future. A more detailed list of areas that need improvement beyond a single question of energy values and references to recent literature would help in focusing on areas of improvement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs if you are suggesting the FAR remain active, the remaining notifications will need to be done. If you prefer the Coords put it on hold to give you a few months, you should say so, and then the remaining notifications won't be neeeded, yet. Please let this page know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria SandyGeorgia I'm fine with it staying open. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, make a post on Fuch's talkpage after I was notified, notifying them of the nomination, which automatically pings them. I was unaware that a post had been made on his talkpage discussing the article the exact same day I nominated the page, my apologies. This article receives thousands of views every day, those "few months" likely mean hundreds of thousands of readers, this article should be a priority. I intend to notify the other Wikiprojects in due course. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now notified all relevant Wikiprojects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot locate the small error that resulted after notifications were not done; don't know how to fix this now, so I have removed all smalling. Notifications are now done, but I will leave fixing of the bulk now on this page to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment - Isn't this only supposed to be opened after issues are brought up at the talk page of the article? Step one at the instructions says "Raise issues at the article's talk page... Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review". I think this might be premature. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did bring up some issues on the talkpage of the article three weeks ago Talk:Chicxulub_crater#Unreliable_sources. Nobody responded. My intent for calling for a FAR is a kick up the arse to get the article into shape. I don't want to see the article delisted. I just want it to actually be FA quality. I am happy to put the nomination on hold for a few weeks if that helps the article get into shape and prevents delisting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over a decade since it was promoted and the article now has a number of issues. I am not sure it satisifes WP:FACR criteria 1.a,b,c,d, or 2,a,b. I have cleaned up a lot of the articles content, and the scope of the previous separate Chicxulub impactor article has been merged into this one, because there is not enought that can be said about the impactor to justify separation. One of the issues I have is that the energy values given for the impact are based on an unpublished preprint, and ideally should be replaced with a more reliable scholarly source. It's also not clear that the article comprehensively covers the recent literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more thorough review of the article:

  • The discovery section seems fine, no need for major changes.
  • The opening section of the "Impact specifics" seems fine (largely because I wrote it), however, it doesn't cover the nature of what is known in impact geology as the "target rocks", which in this case were marine carbonates and anhydrite, which should be included. There is some discussion of it in other sections, but there is in fact no mention of anhydrite anywhere in the article, despite its importance in recent literature.
  • The second section of "Impact effects" doesn't cover a lot of the recent literature. Some of the impact specifics are cited to interviews in The Dinosaurs: Death of the Dinosaur a 1990 PBS documentary. This is not an ideal source and should really be replaced with modern scholarship. Others are based on the thirty year old paper "Chicxulub Crater; a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico", which should also ideally be replaced with more recent literature.
  • "Astronomical origin of impactor" seems mostly fine (because I wrote about half of it), this was merged from the redundant Chicxulub impactor article.
  • "Chicxulub and mass extinction" fails to mention any reason as to why the impact is thought to have caused an extinction, which seems like a major omission.
  • No strong opinions on the "Expedition 364" section, though it does seem large relative to the rest of the article.
  • The current reference style is a bad hybrid between visual editor automatic citations and harvard style footnotes, this should be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of referencing, I'm fine with adjusting the style—since people do drive-by additions and rarely follow Harvard, I think it makes most sense to collapse the notes and refs into one section, use everything in ref tags w/ citation templates and if necessary use {{rp}} for specific pagination where necessary outside of the citation. I would think at least for the ease of improving things shoving current citations into a reflist in the references section would be best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the Expedition 364 section that it just feels like recent information not properly contextualized and integrated into the article, so I've started trimming it down and moved it into the geology/morphology section where I think it makes more sense.
Working on migrating refs and tagging some that don't appear to be used currently in the process for evaluation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've migrated sources from the bibliography to the references section, so everything now uses {{reflist}}; some ref formatting for missing fields/differences in formatting still needs to be done. There remains a number of phantom sources left over in the bibliography; some can probably safely be jettisoned but I will need to go through them to double-check. Once that's done I will get back to prose cleanup; seems like editors were busy adding in facts that were redundant to other parts of the article, so a lot in the "mass extinction" section can be cut or recontextualized. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, I've substantially revised and slimmed down the extinction section, and tried to reduce redundancies with other sections throughout. While there's still work to do in terms of formatting refs, copyediting, and pulling a few more refs to source stuff I don't think was adequately or clearly referenced previously/cleanup tags, wanted to check in. I think the article is better weighted towards more recent sources and incorporating them better into the flow of the article. Thoughts? Additionally User:Wretchskull if you had any thoughts would be good to get more than one opinion here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks great now, but I have a few comments:
  • Per MOS:SEEALSO, links given in the body should not be mentioned in see also. Remove Iridium anomaly. List of impact craters on Earth is already linked, but because it isn't displayed verbatim, and because I'm certain readers would click such a link, I'll let you keep it if you want to.
  • If you could remove the three refs in the lede and incorporate them in the body that would be great.
  • There are still two citation needed tags. Have you searched anything on internet archive, google books, google scholar, the Wikilibrary, etc.?
  • Ref 69 uses the deprecated parameter "|lay-url=".
  • Perhaps link "million years ago"?
Thank you for your work! Wretchskull (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there has been a signficiant improvement. Another issue I have is that we are continuing to use newspaper articles such as the BBC for the effects of the impact, when these really should be sourced to journal articles, see cf. WP:MEDPOP. In particular there appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC sourcing, where in the BBC article it says gypsum was injected into the atmosphere, but recent journal sources say the evaporite component was almost entirely anhydrite (which is effectively an anhydrous form of gypsum), maybe that is just semantic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wretchskull I believe I've addressed your concerns except for the lay-url thing (there's some disagreement on whether it's gonna' stay deprecated so I'll leave it for now.) Hemiauchenia, I'm fine with using the the journals to double-verify what's in the news articles (the specific example you pull I think is a distinction without a difference for our purposes, but c'est la vie), but the main issues with relying on them solely (besides starting to get into the weeds of minor stuff that I don't think a general wikipedia article should bother with, see the aforementioned 'is gypsum 100% technically the right word') is that they're really not set up for giving useful soundbites to quote versus specific facts and figures. The books and longform journalism articles in the article right now are much better at giving a broad overview, so I'd be reticent to cut them.
On that subject, the article currently is structured with explaining how Penfield &c. discovered the impact crater, its description, effects, and then talking more about the extinction theory. I'm wondering if that's a weird way of structuring it? Versus starting with the Alvarez hypothesis in 1979/80, discussing the search for the crater generally (Alvarez's book gives some useful info there that's not included at present) and then going to what is currently the opening of the article. Perhaps that level of context makes more sense for the overall structure of the article and the narrative? It also then allows us to more directly talk about the effects and why that was obviously a disaster for life/cause of the K-Pg extinction in the effects section itself, versus a final section partially restating some of the details from before. Since you felt that the section was sort of weird to begin with Hemiauchenia maybe this gets around the problem entirely? (On the other hand, I do kind of like ending it with the declarative bits about why the crater is so important, but I think a lot of that stuff about being accepted by the scientific community would still end up at the end of the article regardless.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and adjusted it. The final paragraph feels slightly out of place but it fits much better with everything else I think it's an overall improvement. Also expanded the discovery section a bit in the process. As for the newspaper/news sourcing, I can be double-checked but I think most have a corresponding journal citation to verify their more technical claims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Excellent work! By the way, this edit seems rather contentious, as it substantially alters a significant figure about the speed of the impactor; I can't fault the latter source added, though. Also, "perhaps" (in the same clause) feels a little unencyclopedic, and I would probably replace it with "approximately/about/circa/most likely" or anything else. Wretchskull (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The section "Geology and geomorphology" seems to combine the two topics, without doing a particularly good job on either. There's also quite a bit of geological information in the preceding "Impact specifics" section, so a reorganisation may be in order. Another issue is that there are a number of statements in both sections that seem to be based on a misreading of the cited sources e.g. "Vaporized rock, including sulfur-rich gypsum from the shallow coastal waters, was injected into the atmosphere.", whereas the importance of the shallow water is that most of the impactor's energy was spent in melting and deforming rock rather than displacing water, which would have been the case in much deeper water, allowing the anhydrite-bearing Lower Cretaceous rocks towards the base of the 3 km sequence of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks to be vaporized. Again, in the same paragraph, "... determined that the impactor landed in deeper water than previously assumed, which may have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.", which also seems to be suggesting that the sulfur is coming from the water somehow, whereas in this case, it's the increased water vapor reacting with the vaporized anhydrite that would have caused more of the aerosols to form, according to the cited source. The explanation of the formation of cenotes (2nd para Geology and morphology section) due to there being a "water basin" is less than clear, nor why the groundwater created all those caves and cenotes where they did - Hildebrand et al. 1995 link them to slump faults along the crater rim. Much is made of the "pink granite" in the 4th para., although its colour doesn't seem very important. Undoubtedly the granite has moved upwards due to the impact, from a deeper level, although how deep is unclear - it's just part of the underlying basement. The section lacks a clear description of the impactites that the various boreholes have encountered or how they are thought to be distributed around the crater. There's no mention of suevite in the article, although it's ubiquitous in the cited sources. The final sentence states that "The post-impact tsunamis were sufficient to lay down the largest known layered bed of sand, around 100 m deep and separated by grain size, directly above the peak ring." That's not what the cited source says, it states "in the hours that followed (the impact) ocean tsunamis dumped huge amounts of sandy sediment in the giant hole in Earth.", mentioning no thickness, no claim to be the largest known and saying that they were deposited in the crater not on the peak ring. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a start on reorganising by adding a "Morphology" section. Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-section now added. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mikenorton are you done with the substantial content changes? I'm back with access to my databases so I want to go through and spot-check stuff now that the content has shifted but don't want o go down that road if things are still substantially changing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been attempting to rewrite the "Geology" section but it's slow going - see here. Sorry to be so slow at this. I think that we also need a section on "Investigations" to understand the data that's been used, particularly the seismic reflection data that's been acquired and the boreholes that have been drilled since the identification of the crater. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My initial thought is that's getting way too into the weeds here for a general overview of the crater? Stuff about individual boreholes and the like feels like it's dumping jargon no one outside of geology students or scientists are going to know or care about. Beyond that the geology starts getting into the weeds of the area rather than the crater, which I think is out of scope for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The crater is a geological feature - putting more detail in about the geology hardly seems excessive to me. Where else would we put such material? Well, I've gone ahead and replaced the existing geology section and I'm now working on a a relatively short summary of the post-discovery investigations - we wouldn't even know for sure that it was a multi-ring structure if it wasn't for the seismic reflection data that's been acquired over it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While working on the article I noticed that the gravity image (File:Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg) appears to have an erroneous license as it claims that "it only contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey". Links to the original image state in contrast that "This image was constructed from gravity measurements taken by Petróleos Méxicanos beginning in 1948 in the course of petroleum exploration augmented by recent work of researchers from the Geological Survey of Canada, Athabasca University, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán." Regretfully, I think that I should start a deletion process on commons, as I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't be using it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Mikenorton is continuing to work on the article, with a huge edit to the Geology section on March 22 and others making smaller improvements. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished what I had intended to do, although I suspect that there's some duplication in there still. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, I'm finished, unless there are any comments on the changes that I've made that need action. Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there shouldn't be any issues related to the originally-raised ones, but Hemiauchenia is the one who probably most needs to check in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Feel free to close this if there are no other objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia comments:

@Mikenorton and David Fuchs: I am taking a look, please review my edits.

  • The impact has been interpreted to have occurred in Northern Hemisphere Spring[24] or late Northern Hemisphere Spring or Summer[25] based on annual isotope curves in sturgeon and paddlefish bones found at the Tanis site in southwestern North Dakota, which is thought to have formed within hours of impact. ... what is thought to have formed within hours of impact? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more text to explain more what the Tanis site is. Mikenorton (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, but I split the sentence; pls check, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the author display convention in this article? Many have multiple authors set to one plus et al, some have four, some have display-authors=3, some have all authors listed. (My convention on medical articles is to use three plus et al whenever there are more than five authors.). I can detect no consistent format here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since many of them were set to 3, I am standardizing all to 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huge block of uncited text here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the supporting citation to the end of the paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which 2D should be linked here ? Older 2D seismic datasets have also been ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Needs a new section in the reflection seismology article to discuss 2D versus 3D techniques, which I will have a go at.Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    New section added and linked. Mikenorton (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this mean ? "Chicx-A was shot parallel to the coast, while Chicx-B and Chicx-C were shot NW–SE and SSW-NNE respectively." What are these things? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should this be linked to ? "data was also recorded onshore to allow wide-angle refraction imaging" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Need a new article for this one, which I will work on. Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia New article created and linked - still needs expansion, particularly a section on "Processing" and a diagram or two, but the basis is there. Mikenorton (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Above and beyond the call of duty! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should this be linked to ? "3D travel time inversion ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked to seismic tomography, which covers the general approach. Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where to start: "In addition, 7,638 kilometers (4,746 mi) of gravity data were acquired at this time." Why is gravity data measured in length? How deep it goes, how far it extends, what? Re-phrase, this is jargon that needs to be explained at first occurrence in the article. Why is "at this time" added? That's redundant to "in addition". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. Mikenorton (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC). Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which morphology should be linked ? "The morphology of the Chicxulub crater is known mainly from geophysical data."
    None of the options on the dab page are appropriate, the general meaning as shown in the wiktionary entry wikt:Morphology of "study of form and structure" is, so perhaps we could just link that? Mikenorton (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not geomorphology ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because that refers only to the shape and form of Earth's surface, rather than what's going on below the surface. There's no specific "morphology" being described other than the general "shape and form" of the impact structure. 12:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    OK, I'll just add a parenthetical then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm stopping there at the Morphology section. There is a severe wikilinking problem that is hard for me to correct. *:::::And there are missing converts throughout. Please ping me when you've caught up to this point and addressed the links beyond this point, and I'll continue reviewing. Changes so far to be reviewed are considerable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mikenorton as you work your way through these, don't forget the stragglers at the top! Great progress so far, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I'm having some trouble seeing the wood for the trees. I know that I still have a missing article to produce on seismic wide-angle reflection/refraction and a section to add to the Reflection seismology article, which will take me some days to do, am I missing something else? Mikenorton (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mikenorton, we aren't supposed to use the highlight template on FACs or FARs, as they cause template limits problems in archives, but I will temporarily highlight the unstruck, so you can more easily see what is left, and then later remove those highlights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just the section on the "Astronomical origin of the impactor" in addition to the tasks I already know about - highlights can be removed. Mikenorton (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming:
  • The unlinked jargon starts getting heavy from Morphology, on; it looks like attention to Wikilinking waned at this point:
    with ring of cenotes onshore and a major circular Bouguer gravity gradient anomaly. It's OK to re-link cenote this far in, and what is a "Bouguer gravity gradient anamoly"?
    Linked Bouguer anomaly. Mikenorton (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converts are missing throughout; I've caught up through Morphology, but perhaps someone can finish, as providing the converts often means recasting the sentence.
  • Should "fault block" be wikilinked? (What is it?)
    It will be much easier to continue from here if someone addresses Wikilinking and edits in all the converts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck some done by Volcanoguy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy I have entered quite a few comments above, but the going gets rougher towards the bottom of the article. Might you be interested in helping to finish up some of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much of a help I can be given the fact that impact cratering isn't my field, but I will see what I can do regarding wikilinks and converts. Volcanoguy 02:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow; most helpful! I'm wondering if you ought to look at the top of the article as well? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only things I found worth wikilinking before the Morphology section were "magnetic anomalies" and "volcanism" in the Discovery section. Volcanoguy 05:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical origin of impactor

All addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other impacting body? " According to Bottke, the Chicxulub impactor was a fragment of a much larger parent body about 170 km (106 mi) across, with the other impacting body being around 60 km (37 mi) in diameter." Does this mean they suggested another body split off and hit elsewhere on Earth ? I can't tell which is which.
  • "suggesting the impactor was a member of an uncommon class of asteroids called carbonaceous chondrites, like Baptistina." But carbonaceous chondrites are discussed two paras before this statement.
  • Same here: "the ratios of platinum group metals found in marine impact layers, that the impactor was either a CM or CR carbonaceous chondrite C-type asteroid" ... but these are first discussed in the first para ... can we get all the defining stuff together when the term is first discussed?
  • What is K/Pg? "In 2010, another hypothesis was offered which implicated the newly discovered asteroid 354P/LINEAR, a member of the Flora family of asteroids, as a possible remnant cohort of the K/Pg impactor."
    Ah, I see the problem. Sometimes the article says K-Pg boundary, sometimes K–Pg, and now K/Pg. Fixed and struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the same month ... " What month? (In fact, what year?)
  • Still need the year ... "This was followed by a rebuttal published in Astronomy & Geophysics in June of the same year, ... "

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at rewriting to address those points. Mikenorton (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since reverted by Hemiauchenia, hopefully because they're planning to redo the whole section. Mikenorton (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. What I'd like to see in the end is all of the definitional/description of carbonaceous chondrites combined to the first discussion of that (CC), in the first para, rather than spread throughout the section. As it is now, one gets bits and pieces of description of what CC is about in three different paras. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I was trying to do. I did add the month and year though. Mikenorton (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've lost track .. but I think we're there ?? Got the date issues solved, got all of the CC together, and sorted the different bodies ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that leaves only the 2D, 3D business above unstruck? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so, well including the wide-angle bit - as I said that will likely take a week–10 days, but ping me if time is dragging on. Mikenorton (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ping in some of the other (independent) FAR reviewers, if/when Hemiauchenia is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am done with the section for the moment, mostly because I can't think of a better way to structure it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Borehill drilling

  • Unclear why we care. "Sample preparation and analysis were performed in Bremen, Germany."
    This is a bit of text left over from the original "Geology" section that I brought in with the information on the MH077a Peak Ring borehole. If you think that it's excessive, I have no problem with it going. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it then,[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pemex have drilled several hydrocarbon exploration boreholes on the Yucatan peninsula, which have provided some useful data from intermittent core samples." --> Can this be instead -->
    • Intermittent core samples from hydrocarbon exploration boreholes drilled by Pemex on the Yucatán peninsula have provided some useful data. And why do we care about "intermittent"? If that is something technically meaningful, should it be linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "Intermittent" here, meaning only occasional samples taken over the length of the borehole, is contrasted with "fully-cored" in the next sentence, which gives a continuous sample over the length of the borehole - this makes a huge difference in the certainty with which the borehole information can be interpreted. Mikenorton (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck, addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: Where is this cited in the body of the article? "It is one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth, and the only one whose peak ring is intact and directly accessible for scientific research."SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was in the original "Geology" section before I rewrote it, although the sourcing doesn't look brilliant. I'll see what I can find and add that to the relevant part of the current "Geology" section - it shouldn't be an issue.Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed, struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issue:

  • Text: Pemex have drilled several hydrocarbon exploration boreholes on the Yucatán peninsula, which have provided some useful data from intermittent core samples. UNAM drilled a series of eight fully-cored boreholes in 1995, three of which penetrated deeply enough to reach the ejecta deposits outside the main crater rim, UNAM-5, 6 and 7. In 2001–2002, a scientific borehole was drilled near the Haciende Yaxcopoil, known as Yaxopoil-1 (or more commonly Yax-1), to a depth of 1,511 meters (4,957 ft) below the surface, as part of the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program. The borehole was cored continuously, passing through 100 meters (330 ft) of impactites.
  • Source: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/chicxulub-crater/

I thought the sourcing was done and checked here, or I would not have spent so much time on prose. Almost none of that sentence is verified by the text: now a more comprehensive check is warranted. I only discovered this because I was trying to check the spelling on Haciende, a word I have never seen in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm fairly certain that's an error. To my knowledge, there is no such word in Spanish, and Wikipedia has it as Hacienda at Yaxcopoil, and all google searches turn up the more correct Hacienda (rather than Haciende). From where comes all of that text? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikenorton: re this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the issues, but have little time over this weekend. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed, struck (citation was misplaced, spelling corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, and Wretchskull: I've done all the damage I can do, with Mikenorton and Hemiauchenia; ready for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the list for me, after finishing off enzyme inhibitor and reading through Palladian architecture. I'm running chronically behind, like always. Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give some thoughts below. I have not read the above, nor have I been following this FAR, so I am sorry if my comments repeat what has already been stated. I will fix minor prose things as I read, and post below what I don't think I can resolve:

  • File:Chicxulub impact - artist impression.jpg: Wow, this caption is a lot. This information is already in the article, so can this be trimmed to one sentence describing what it is?
    Most of that caption could be ditched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Discovery section is quite long. Can this be divided up with Level 3 headings?
  • "possibly through higher levels of fracturing, although the precise mechanism remains unknown." This is uncited, or the ref is in the wrong spot?
Now cited and I've removed the uncertainty, as the sources that mentioned it are not of such high quality. Mikenorton (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 30 is giving me a red text error
    I fixed that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added alt text to images per MOS:ALT

Overall, this is a well written article that, even though I am not science minded, I was able to follow. Great job everyone. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is this?

  • Bates, Robin (series producer); Chesmar, Terri and Baniewicz, Rich (associate producers); Bakker, Robert T.; Hildebrand, Alan; Melosh, Gene; Moras, Florentine; Penfield, Glen (interviewees) (1992). The Dinosaurs! Episode 4: "Death of the Dinosaur" (TV-series). PBS Video, WHYY-TV.

It says it is a PBS Video, but it's linking to IMDb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 22 July 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [5].

Solar System edit

Notified: Nsae Comp, Ruslik0, ‎Kwamikagami, ‎JorisvS,‎ Rfassbind, ‎Ashill, ‎Double sharp, ‎Serendipodous, ‎WP Systems, ‎WP Astronomical objects, ‎WP Solar System, talk page notification 2022-02-22

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you are supposed to wait at least 2 weeks for someone to respond. This article is listed on WP:URFA/2020A (kept at FAR in 2009) but has not been examined yet. There is considerable unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cinadon36; your notifications are looking good, the remaining step is to list them above, using the format at Mars. No harm done here, as it does not appear that the Astronomy WikiProject has the people power or the interest in keeping their articles at standard anymore; a very sad loss for Wikipedia, as we had most of the Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinadon36, I completed the notification listings for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm spread thin these days, but I took a first whack at addressing the issues raised on the Talk page, and I trimmed a little. My impression right now is that the uncited material can probably either be cited to standard textbooks (or possibly journal articles), or removed as WP:UNDUE. It's a fixer-upper, but not a trainwreck. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @XOR'easter the article just needs some small fixes, the structure is excellent, so is most of the text. Cinadon36 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more work and remain optimistic. I moved the history-of-science section to the end of the article, which seems to be more in line with how Wikipedia typically does science articles: modern status first, history in the middle or later (compare the FA speed of light and the GA quantum mechanics, for example). I'll have to think more about if and how it needs revising. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update? @Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the uncited text is "summarizes the linked article" kind of stuff or standard reference material, which looked easy to fix, so I was hoping somebody else would do it. I may have time later this week. I have no great sense for how many images is too many; for whatever reason, the arrangement of images on Wikipedia pages hardly ever strikes me as aesthetically pleasing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching both, and impressed, but no time to respond yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That section has been bothering me, too. I ended up removing one of the wide images and the table. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and winnowed them. I think that widely-separated instances of technical terms are probably OK to link twice (a reader might encounter them in a later section without having seen their use in an earlier one), but there was definitely a lot that made for choppy reading. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that and thought about removing it, but he does appear to be a subject-matter specialist [6], so I set it aside for the moment to work on more pressing troubles. It can probably be removed as redundant with the JPL website that's currently footnote 1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed now (though I wouldn't have a strong objection to adding it as an external link). XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been trying to make the references consistent as I go along, but I haven't yet had the will to do a top-to-bottom revision of the metadata formatting. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're all "last name, first name" now. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and applied various fixes and made refinements to the content and references. All tags have been addressed. It looks like XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane have been doing the same. Hopefully it's back close to FA quality now. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: , is FARC necessary? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This YouTube video here: [7] from 3:47 – 4:20 shows a good graphic about the Solar System's composition. What else do you guys want me to add? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed I have finally eked out the time to look at the changes made since I last worked on this article, and I believe that it is up to the required standard. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed There are a lot of places that can see improvement, but this article is a FA, full stop. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the talk page states that this article is already in FARC. Could we get a status update? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure where you are seeing that; the nomination is still in the FAR stage. The status is, two editors have opined that the nomination should be closed without moving to FARC. If you disagree, you can enter a "Move to FARC" declaration. If you agree, you can enter "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of Keep FA status), and if you think more work is needed, that can also be stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the 'If' at the start of the template message. Sorry. Old, tired eyes I guess. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Join the crowd :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep listed I am happy with the current version. Cinadon36 10:40, 5 July 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.

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [8].

Samuel Merrill Woodbridge edit

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP Bio, WP Christianity, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section edit

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one's short and most of the sources are online, so I'll try to gradually give it checks and note the results on FAR talk. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - have gone through and noted some source-text issues on talk, although they aren't as major or extensive as at some of the other ones (although I do think a few things are probably errors). What concerns me more is the sourcing used and noted used. Hageman's book appears to frequently mention Woodbridge, but is barely used, while the article is heavily reliant on a genealogical piece, a couple directory listings, and a pamphlet put together for a college ceremony he was involved with. I'm also not convinced it's WP:FACR-compliant to have a list of his speeches largely sourced to the transcripts of the speeches themselves. Because of the source-text issues and the weak sourcing, unless somebody wants to pick this one up, it needs to be delisted. I frankly have no interest in trying to resurrect this mess. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, it doesn't appear anyone will pick this one up, could be expedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Hog Farm's sourcing issues. I don't think it needs to be expediated, but won't be opposed to it. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per similar issues in other FAs by same nominator, requiring extensive work to address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist verifiability problems and very weak sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 16:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 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) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [9].

Finn M. W. Caspersen edit

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other active editors, WP New Jersey, WP Bio, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord

Review section edit

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, similar to other articles by the same nominator, the first thing I checked had problems. I checked the first line of the Personal life section: "In 1967, Caspersen married Barbara Warden Morris, the daughter of Samuel Wheeler Morris Jr. (1918–1995) and Eleanor May Jones (1919–2011), one of Philadelphia's socially prominent Main Line families.[2][26]". The Vanity Fair article does say he married a Barbara Warden Morris in 1967, but the Philadelphia Inquirer article does not say that Barbara Morris was the daughter of Sam and Eleanor, rather refers to a Barbara who was Sam's mother. Very confusing, indicating a lack of research. Talk:Finn M. W. Caspersen#Attorney's letter is interesting. Considering other articles by this nominator with hoaxes, it doesn't seem we should need to keep looking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per Sandy. This one had given me a bad feeling about sourcing for months; never got around to looking into it. Not surprised that sourcing issues are present. Hog Farm Talk 14:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Verifiability concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per similar issues found in FAs by same nominator, requiring extensive work to check and address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, we can't trust any sourcing by the original FAR nominator. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no major edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 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) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [10].

Bam Thwok edit

Notified: CloudNine, WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Alternative Music, WikiProject Alternative Music, WikiProject Women in Music, May 24, 2022

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has two unresolved sourcing issues (permanently dead link and uncited text) and weasel words that make an unsupported claim about the relationship between two living people. I fixed some issues with the article half a year ago, but these are the ones that I couldn't find any citations for. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC: no edits since January. I think this could be an easy save, but someone will have to search for sources (or find an archived link) to replace the deadlink and citation needed template. I'm also curious if there are additional sources that can be consulted for this article, as it is on the shorter side. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, zero edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for weasel words and unsourced statements for over 6 months. DrKay (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per DrKay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Theoretically shouldn't be a hard save, but there's been no interest in working on it, and I have neither the time, the interest, nor the expertise to be the one to work on this. Hog Farm Talk 00:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 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) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [11].

Ulm campaign edit

Notified: UberCryxic, Snagemit, The Exterminating Angel, WP MilHist, WP Germany, talk page notice 2021-12-01

Review section edit

This very old Featured article has considerable uncited text. Top editors are either relatively inactive, or blocked; one is blocked for disruptive editing, so edits should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC: No edits since nomination, uncited text remains. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 13:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FAR, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements, including 'unpopular', 'serious', 'easy', 'hopeless', 'fooled', etc. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unimproved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist sourcing issues are unresolved. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: No major edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:41, 28 July 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) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [12].

A Song for Simeon edit

Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP England, WP Poetry, WP Christianity, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section edit

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources and citations by Vami

Reviewed version. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To begin, I could not find,

  1. Eliot, T. S. "A Song for Simeon" in Ariel 16. (London: Faber and Faber, 1928).
    1. [a]: It is not proper for this citation to be in the lead.
    2. [b, c, & d]: Sourcing text pertaining to the poem's construction and content to the poem itself strikes me as OR.
  2. Eliot, T. S. "A Song for Simeon" in Collected Poems: 1909–1935. (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1936); and Collected Poems: 1909–1962. (London: Faber and Faber; New York: Harcourt Brace, 1963).
    1. [a] It is not proper for this citation to be in the lead.
    2. [b, c, & d]: ...does citing the books in which the poem was published suffice for demonstrating, via a reliable, secondary source, that it was published in those books?
    3. [e & f] Sourcing text pertaining to the poem's construction to the poem itself strikes me as OR.

These books do exist, but I think their use speaks to the age of this article. Just googling the poem allowed me to find it online.

  2. Timmerman, John H. T. S. Eliot's Ariel Poems: The Poetics of Recovery. (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University Press, 1994), 117–123.
    1. [a]: Unsubstantiated. This selection of pages is an analysis of the contents of the poem.
    2. [b]: Ditto.
    3. [c]: The only portion of the relevant text supported by this citation is For the second, "A Song for Simeon", Eliot turned to an event at the end of Nativity narrative in the Gospel of Luke., from pages 118 and 119.
  3. Murphy, Russell Elliott. Critical Companion to T. S. Eliot: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work. (New York: Facts on File/InfoBase Publishing, 2007).
    1. Tertiary source. A textbook specifically.
    2. [a] pp. 50–51: Verified.
    3. [b] p. 18: Verified.
    4. [c] ibid.: The only part of the relevant text substantiated by this citation is the overquote that makes up the back half of the text.
    5. [d] pp. 19, 50, 376: Verified.
    6. [e] p. 19: Verified.
    7. [f] p. 276: Unsubstantiated.
  4. Rainey, Lawrence S. (editor). The Annotated Waste Land with Eliot's Contemporary Prose (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 9ff.
    1. "9ff"...? Page 9 discusses Eliot's work at various banks in the mid-1910s, but no poems.
  5. Gordon, Lyndell. T. S. Eliot: An Imperfect Life. (London: Vintage, 1998).
    1. [a] pp. 20, 212, 223: Verified.
    2. [b] p. 223: Unsubstantiated.
    3. [c] p. 225: Verified.
    4. [d] p. 224: Verified, but should really be pp. 224–25
    5. [f] p. 104: Unsubstantiated. Gordon does not say who is saying this utterly ridiculous thing ([...] that Eliot was at his most brilliant in his prejudice.), and the article misquotes the book. It reads, "It is also suggested that Eliot is at his most brilliant when he incites prejudice", in the context (so it would seem) of ill-advised satire.
  6. Eliot, T. S. Preface to For Lancelot Andrewes: Essays on Style and Order. (London: Faber and Faber, 1929).
    1. Verified via John Hopkins University.
  7. Staff. Books: Royalist, Classicist, Anglo-Catholic (a review of 1936 Harcourt, Brace edition of Eliot's Collected Poems: 1909–1935) in Time (25 May 1936).
    1. Verified.
  8. Kirk, Russell. Eliot and His Age: T. S. Eliot's Moral Imagination in the Twentieth Century. (Wilmington: Isi Books, 2008), 240.
    1. It would appear from Google Books that the cited page does indeed contain the text quoted in the full citation. I can't actually make sure, though, because the best I can get is a snippet view. As an aside, the publisher, ISI Books, has a Conservative agenda to push and specializes in tertiary sources. Recommend replacement with something less odious.
  9. Zabel, Morton D. "T. S. Eliot in Mid-Career", in Poetry (September 1931): 36:330–337.
    1. Verified. Except that this was printed in the September 1930, not September 1931 (since corrected).
  10. Symes, Gordon. "T. S. Eliot and Old Age", in Fortnightly 169(3) (March 1951): 186–93.
    1. This is not on JSTOR so I can't verify this.
  11. Stead, Christian. The New Poetic: Yeats to Eliot. (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1969), passim.
    1. "Passim". No, thank you.
  12. Eliot, T. S. "The Journey of the Magi" (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1927).
    1. Unsubstantiated; further, see [1] and [2].
  13. Moody, A. David. Thomas Stearns Eliot: Poet. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 114.
    1. Unsubstantiated. The only things shared between the cited page and the relevant text is the publication of "A Song for Simeon" in "September 1928".
  14. Gallup, Donald. T. S. Eliot: A Bibliography. (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969).
    1. [a] p. 36: This substantiates the last sentence of the relevant text, and nothing more.
    2. [b]: No. I again do not think "passim" shall suffice.
    3. [c] p. 36: I do not know why we need this level of detail, but this citation supports it.
    4. [d] ibid.: Verified.
  15. [16] and [17] are verifiable but strike me as SPS.
  • Move to FARC, it does not look like anyone will pick this one up, and the usual problems are present. Could be expedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated process, same issues as the others; seems unlikely that this will be picked up. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated verification issues warrant an accelerated process imo. Z1720 (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Verifiability concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, accelerated. This article is absolutely salvageable. But will anyone salvage it? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, accelerated, per similar issues in other FAs by same nominator, requiring extensive work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, accelerated, per sourcing issues noted above. This honestly needs a new FAC even if salvaged. Hog Farm Talk 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, accelerated, veribility concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 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) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [13].

Nancy Reagan edit

Notified: User talk:Happyme22, User talk:Wasted Time R, all wikiprojects on talk page, diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography." Another issue I noticed is POV issues such as "Although the bill was criticized", and where characterization of Just Say No program as ineffective is attributed to "critics" and not mentioned in the lead. However, the (in)effectiveness of the program has been empirically measured. This is a widely viewed article so I hope someone will step up to improve it. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC minimal improvement (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC minimal improvement of the article since its nomination. I am concerned about some of the sources used, and it seems like lots of sources and information has been added since its FAC, so these will need to be checked for their quality and accuracy. Z1720 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist lack of improvement, issues still present (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: sourcing concerns remain, and no significant edits since FAR nom. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sadly. no engagement and an underuse of scholarly literature. Hog Farm Talk 18:12, 22 July 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) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [14].

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery edit

Notified: Johnbod, Z1720,Bishonen, Buidhe, Fannybriceii, Giano, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women in Green, 2022-03-23, 2022-04-28

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one - I can't see "several". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... that's after I spent an hour excising a few, and I'm less than halfway through the McKinstry cites; if you've already found one I missed, fair enough. I have two others of the books used in the references on order from my local library.

But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [15] [16] [17] [18] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to "Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates." Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [19] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the last couple of hours restoring a little of the information which has been wrongly removed by Ravenswing. I own all the books mentioned in the references, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours reverting all his edits. There is nothing in the original page which isn't sourced or able to be sourced, but if Ravenswing doesn't stop his vandalism there will be little left to read. Perhaps that's his intention? This is a very strange nomination. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really do seem to have an ownership problem with this article, don't you? First it's accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny on the talk page, and now this. The changes I made in the article were removing statements unsourced by the listed citations, or ones that were uncited in the first place. You should have spent the time to do your work properly in the first place for a FA article; if you claim you lack the time now to clean up your own errors, well, you're the best judge of your own time. But the sheer hysteria you're displaying (a byte count shows that I removed less than a twentieth of the content) is unbecoming. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take any further personal commentary to someone's talk page rather than here - this kind of back-and-forth isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giano for making improvements on this article at the end of May. There are still a lot of statements that do not have references. Are you continuing to work on this article? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I call for the article to be listed as a Featured article removal candidate. I posted this here over three weeks ago, and short of Giano filling in some references, my concerns set forth in the initial listing have not been addressed, save for ad hominen attacks by Giano for "vandalism" and "anti-semitism." I maintain that this article is long on speculation, innuendo and gossip and short on fact, that much of it is a coatrack for her husband's political career -- the section, for example, of Lord Rosebery's career after the Countess' death is over eight hundred and fifty words long -- and that this is not a viable subject for a FA-level article. Ravenswing 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text (I tagged some, but there is more) and an inconsistent citation style; I intended to clean up all citations, but cannot discern what style is intended, as there is a mix. A fascinating article, I hope someone with sources will work towards saving this FA; I will help with citation formatting if the article is cited and a style is established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, improvements have stalled and there are still unresolved issues (sourcing and citation consistency). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no improvements since June 18 and citation concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, considerable uncited text remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Beyond the uncited text, my concerns remain that large sections of the article are coatracks for her husband's political career, and that too much of the article (however sourced) involves gossip, editorializing and innuendo to a degree that we would never tolerate in a contemporaneous BLP, and certainly should not in a FA. Having raised these concerns back in April, and despite some work on mine and SandyGeorgia's part, the article should be delisted until such time as involved and willing editors can fix them. Ravenswing 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on delisting/not delisting since I find the whole FA process giggle-inducing. However, I'm constantly amazed at the kind of writing that passes for FA-worthy:
    • For over thirty years following her death, he wandered in a political wilderness, directionless and exceedingly eccentric... – While the Biblical allusion is charming (if somewhat misplaced), Wikipedia doesn't talk of wilderness-wandering in its own voice -- unless of course someone did, in fact, literally wander in a literal wilderness. If there's an RS using that image in a striking way, quote it; otherwise, no.
    • Widowhood changed Rosebery, both mentally and physically: he aged overnight – People don't actually age overnight, so (again) it's startling to see an article saying this in its own voice. As before, if e.g. a sympathetic friend said that he seemed to age overnight, then we should attribute that characterization to that friend.
    • Rosebery seems to have disliked his first son, who he claimed looked "Jewish." On seeing his son for the first time he remarked Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus, which must have been disconcerting for the child's Jewish mother. – A severe case of WP:ELEVAR. Given that this is the article on the child's Jewish mother (that is, Hannah -- and I believe by this point the reader has picked up that she was Jewish), why in the world can't it just say ...which must have been disconcerting for Hannah, or (come to think of it) just leave the whole "must have been disconcerting" bit out, since readers would have to be especially dense not to get that on their own.
EEng 20:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Uncited text remains, the article needs a copyedit (as indicated by Eng) and no major edits since June. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per EEng. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 19 July 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) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [20].

Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey edit

Notified: no users with considerable edits,WP New Jersey, WP Rutgers, WP Higher education, WP Architecture, WP Historic Places, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section edit

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on 2 July 2022, there are source-to-text integrity issues found in this article, similar to other FAs by the same nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, accelerated process - minimal checks uncovered many instances of failed verification, and two spots where the article contradicts the cited source. Given the history of the nominator, IMO this would need a clean FAC even if the needed WP:TNT occurred. Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delist on this one. A citation-by-citation review will follow this post. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Vami_IV could you let us know when you are done with the source examination? FARs are not typically segmented unless they get extremely long, and that sub-head can be removed once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll change the header to bold text as soon as I'm done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the work,Vami_IV; does not look good. Might you be interested in taking on another of the Henry's at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Song for Simeon/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. That is much more substantial article than this. I'll chew on some other projects some more and think it over. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Based on the issues raised by HF above and Vami below. There are also significant issues with this article aside from sourcing:
  • This page would fail FA criterion 1b in my view. Considering that this is an article about a building, the page has remarkably little detail about its architecture, which seems to be mentioned only in passing ("Hardenbergh's design employs Renaissance elements with possible Dutch influence in the gables on the front and sides." and the use of brick are the only specific architectural details that are mentioned here).
  • This page would fail FA criterion 1d as well. About half the article is about the Rutgers Geology Museum, even though the museum itself covers a small part of the building. This page should really be moved if that is indeed the focus of the article.
  • There is an indiscriminate gallery of images at the bottom of the page. It's questionable whether this would have been allowed under FA criterion 3, and I'm not sure how the article was allowed to pass FAC with such a gallery.
– Epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, accelerated process (with an explanation for others). Typically, Keep or Delist are not entered in the FAR phase, but in the situation of a procedural FAR because of pervasive and similar issues found in other FAs by the same nominator, an accelerated process is considered. I do not believe the work to save this star is warranted (I might be persuaded if a very experienced FA writer asked to be given time to attempt a save, but I don't see that happening). Epicgenius's list of issues beyond sourcing is the final straw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inspection of sources and citations by Vami Reviewed version.

  1. McCormick, Richard P. Rutgers: A Bicentennial History. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1966).
    1. [a] pp. 87–88: Supports half of the relevant sentence; In 1864 the State of New Jersey named Rutgers College as their sole land grant college. is not substantiated by this citation.
    2. [b] ibid.: Also mostly checks out; Cook was appointed state geologist in 1864 and later became the college's vice president. is not substantiated (though p. 88 does say he was "For some years [Cook] had been carrying on the work of State Geologist under the sponsorship of the New Jersey Agricultural Society [...]."), nor is With the college's land grant status and new funding for scientific studies, Cook expanded his research and teaching into geology and agriculture.
    3. [c] p. 101: Substantiated, except for (in addition to Schanck Observatory); no mention whatever is made of any observatory on this page.
    4. [d] ibid.: Substantiated.
    5. [e] ibid.: Substantiated, but the relevant sentence clumsily jumbles up the described contents of the Hall.
    6. [f] pp. 148, 157 : Substantiated.
    7. [g] p. 101: Substantiated, but... McCormick just describes the second floor thusly: "[...] and a large museum on the second floor."
  2. United States Code, Title 7, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, § 304
    1. Substantiated; but the citation of the law here feels totally unnecessary. Citation [1a] already mentions and describes the Morrill Act of 1862.
  3. David Murray (compiler). A Memorial of Rev. William Henry Campbell, D.D., LL.D. Late President of Rutgers College. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Trustees of Rutgers College, 1894).
    1. [a] pp. 45–47: Almost none of the relevant sentences are substantiated by this citation. The relevant page is p. 45, which also omits the date of Cook's appointment as State Geologist.
    2. [b] ibid.: Substantiated. Also mentions the Schanck Observatory, unlike [1c].
    3. [c] ibid.: Substantiated. That sum, down to the last dime and nickel, is lifted out of [3c].
  4. Rutgers College and Raven, John Howard (Rev.) (compiler). Catalogue of the Officers and Alumni of Rutgers College (originally Queen's College) in New Brunswick, N.J., 1766–1916. (Trenton, New Jersey: State Gazette Publishing Company, 1916).
    1. [a] p. 47: Totally unsubstantiated.
    2. [b] p. 37: Totally unsubstantiated.
  5. Glovin, Bill. "Castles in the Air" in Rutgers Magazine (Spring 2006), 35–41.
    1. I cannot find this source. That does not inspire confidence in me, but a Google search revealed Bill Glovin to be a real person who did once edit Rutgers Magazine.
  6. Staff. "H. J. Hardenberg, Architect, is Dead" in The New York Times (March 14, 1918).
    1. Substantiated, except for [...] and his grandfather, Rev. Jacob Janeway served as vice president of the college and had turned down the post of president in 1840.
  7. Barr, Michael C. and Wilkens, Edward. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for Queen's Campus at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (1973).
    1. [a]: OR bupkis. The NRHP document says that Hardenbergh worked in a "Dutch Renaissance" style in his hotels, and describes Geology Hall as "[employing] both Gothic elements and classical forms."
    2. [b]: Substantiated.
    3. [c]: Substantiated.
  8. Hawes, George W., et al. for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Office. "Report on Building stones of the United States and Statistics of the Quarry Industry for 1880" from Final Report on the Tenth Census, Volume 10. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1884), 310.
    1. I cannot find this source. And surely there must be a better, newer source for the mere fact that this building was built of stone (like the NRHP document).
  9. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – Rutgers University Libraries. "Paths to Historic Rutgers: A Self-Guided Tour" from the Special Collections and University Archives: University Archives.
    1. Substantiated.
  10. Robbins, Allen B. History of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1771–2000. (Baltimore, Maryland: Gateway Press, 2001), 56, 76.
    1. Another one I can't access.
  11. Olsson, Richard. "History of EPS: A Brief History Of Geology At Rutgers, 1830–1980": Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (official website).
    1. Unsubstantiated.
  12. The Queen's Campus (total of 6 buildings and grounds) is listed as SHPO ID# 1881, and NRHP Reference #73001113. See: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) – Historic Preservation Office. New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places – Middlesex County.
    1. Unsubstantiated.
  13. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – Rutgers Geology Museum. "About the Museum".
    1. [a]: Substantiated.
    2. [b]: Unsubstantiated.
  14. Citation [14] does not support any of the text it is attached to, and is rather obese, to boot (two URLs).
  15. Kaado, Jad. "Rutgers Geology Museum May Close After 141 Years: Rumor Has it Museum Will Be Converted to Auditorium" in New Brunswick Today (February 1, 2013).
    1. [a]: Substantiated.

From here on, I have no further comment. Some very large holes have already been blown in #Rutgers Geology Museum by comparison of the text to its nominal sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, accelerated process Vami_VI did an excellent job verifying the information, and found lots of information that was unsubstantiated. Considering that this FAR was opened because the FAC nominator was blocked for creating hoaxes, I think this needs to be delisted quickly. FAR is not the correct avenue to fix these substantial problems. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WP:FAR coordinators: - Given the special situation here, should this one be moved to FARC as sizable issues have been identified and it isn't looking likely that this one will be picked up? Hog Farm Talk 05:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Verifiability concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note four Delists registered above (indicating accelerated process). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat my support of immediate delisting of this; to sweeten the deal, I will begin a through rewrite. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusing: if you are planning to restore this to featured status, then we would not delist. What's the plan? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delist, while I work in my sandbox, and then send the result to FAC as a new, clean article, per Hog Farm above. I've already found some sources that will make this a totally different article than the one we see now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, understood ... so speedy delist stands, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, a reminder now then ... if it is defeatured, then re-featured, pls remember to adjust the entry at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "adjust" here meaning "to remove" if it returns to Featured status, yes? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a "former featured articles that have been repromoted" section that it would get moved to. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the total number of FFAs is not changed, but the tally (at the top) of re-promoted is incremented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of clearness, my delist above still stands. I would support the accelerated process here, since it's going to be reworked outside of FAR and given a new FAC at some point down the road. Hog Farm Talk 14:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also reaffirming my delist. Since Vami has graciously offered to rewrite this article in his sandbox, then resubmit it to FAC, I also think the process should be accelerated. Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 13 July 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) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [21].

Acute myeloid leukemia edit

Notified: MastCell, Tom (LT), Spicy, Mikael Häggström, Doc James, Роман Беккер, Boghog, Bibeyjj, SandyGeorgia, Ajpolino, WP MED, WP Molecular and Cell Biology, first noticed in 2021

Review section edit

Discussions on the talk page have noted signficant content issues including datedness; work has occurred but a fair bit still needs to be done and it's been stalled for some time. Its sad to see another one of our preciously few medical FA in this condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on article talk, and with MastCell, this article is in quite bad shape. There are short choppy sections, the diagnosis section is impenetrable (even for a medical editor) and could probably benefit from being split to a sub-article and summarized back in prose reasonable for a layperson; a copyedit is needed (samples are colloquilisms like that said, most cases rather than referring to individuals, unnecessary use of subsequently, but there is much more); some sections use very dated sources (see Prognosis as one sample); pediatric AML is not discussed; and there are MOS issues throughout. There is an inconsistent citation style (see Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies or menstrual cycle for examples of how to clean up citations and provide page numbers). These are only samples; the article needs a thorough overhaul from an experienced cancer person and medical editor, and needs to be brought to a place where a layperson can glean useful information. Recent reviews need to be incorporated (samples only, PMID 32236160 and PMID 34615640, there is more). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues persist, minimal engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - significant work is still needed. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency, prose, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, 'tis a pity, but has not been kept current our brought to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, needs significant work. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no progress since move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 15 July 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) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [22].

Order of the Bath edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, talk page notice 2022-04-25

Review section edit

This 2004 FA (last reviewed in 2006) has considerable uncited text (only some of which is tagged), missing as of dates, a listy lead, and some content that may be dated based on old sources used. Per the abundance of the use of the word today, a MOS:CURRENT review is also in order. The word also is often redundant, and often is here; there are other indications that a good copyedit is overdue, such as faulty punctuation throughout. Along with MOS:SANDWICHing, images should not be left-aligned when that offsets a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, considerable uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, needs further citations. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no significant progress since move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 15 July 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) 8:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [23].

Roger Waters edit

Notified: GabeMc, Burrobert, Popcornfud, WikiProject Pink Floyd, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject Music, WikiProject United Kingdom, April 2022

Review section edit

Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The activism section should be rewritten. As you mentioned it is a list of disconnected events. Activism is a large part of his life now. However, it is rare for our green-tick sources to report on his (or anyone else's) left-wing activism because of the nature of those sources. Btw, there are warnings on Water's talk page stating that editors on the page must have over 500 edits and are restricted to two reverts per 24 hours. The editor who reverted your changes broke both rules. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the activism coverage isn't up to snuff. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. The activism section needs to be seriously trimmed. Also, I don't know why a bio article has the "Live band members" section and I think it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move to FARC, fix the article. Can somebody tell me exactly what's wrong with the "Activism" section? I've gone through and trimmed it down and removed anything that was either questionably sourced (don't cite Fox News in an FA - jeez) or just unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:
    • 2022 tour not mentioned in the article, this and other updating issues seem to still be present
    • A longish further reading section raises suspicions that article may not be well-researched as required by the FA criteria. Ideally these works are either cited if relevant, or removed if not.
    SandyGeorgia, Burrobert for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If "this source doesn't tell us anything new", it shouldn't be listed in further reading. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I'll obviously leave the decisions to others, but be aware that The Visual Documentary covers Waters' solo career in more depth - and with more images - than The Music and the Mystery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: apparently, trimming activism meant removing all mention of his controversial views on Venezuela. Odd, that; perhaps reduce paragraphs to one-sentence summaries instead. I suspect this article will be mired in POV for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrasting the approach taken to Rowling demonstrates the problems in sorting the POV in the activism section ... for example, we have Huffington Post as a source ... entire paragraphs on some issues, no mention of others ... what is the criteria for inclusion here? It's certainly not sourcing with things like HuffPost included, while Clarín (Argentine newspaper) is discarded. Also, I hope the prose in the Activism section is not representative of the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have/had the same situation at Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography, and those written are 20 years old. We opted for a very tight summary of Politics of J. K. Rowling, but I don't believe we completely deleted anything covered in reputable broadsheet sources. This article could similarly benefit from starting over with how the Activism section was worked by, a) establishing Politics of Roger Waters, then b) tightly summarizing the issues back to the main article, c) with cleaner prose and less quoting than what is there now, and d) without using sources like Huffington Post, e) and without eliminating sources like The Guardian and Clarin that cover his views on Venezuela. Roger Waters has vocally advocated controversial and unpopular stances in many areas; that warrants an adequate summary from a sub-article, rather than eliminating some of those views. At 5,000 words, this article does not have the WP:SIZE constaints that Rowling has, so it should not be as difficult to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got the time to do the major work required to fix this article up to meet the FA criteria again, and looking at the history, nobody else has either. So I guess FARC is inevitable, but I also think this should serve as a reminder to exactly what we're doing to retain editors who can write brilliant content - all too often, they get scared away or blocked on trumped-up civility charges when they finally snap. It also doesn't really change my view that I think FAC is a fool's errand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist, no improvement since move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, more unsourced/poorly source content has been added since the move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist additional, uncited information has been added to the article since its move to FARC. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 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) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [24].

Anna May Wong edit

Notified: User talk:Dekkappai, WikiProject United States, WikiProject California, WikiProject China, WikiProject Women, WikiProject Women's history, 7 May

Review section edit

Talk page notice:

The lead does not meet MOS:LEAD and there are sourcing issues. I'm not convinced that news articles from the 1930s are high-quality reliable sources when there are a ton of scholarly sources out there. Article can't be considered well-researched given that it doesn't incorporate the new 2019 scholarly biography by Shirley Jennifer Lim.

No improvement or response so here we are (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC No progress, comprehensive concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC per above (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no improvment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist lack of improvement (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 2 July 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) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [25].

Coronation of the British monarch edit

Notified: Lord Emsworth, Dr pda, Firebrace, Alansplodge, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, 2022-03-01

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as buidhe noted, there are several paragraphs and sections that are uncited. One source has also been questioned for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge has added some sources. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, still has considerable uncited text, and has not been edited since June 9. Moving to FARC still allows time for furhter improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist still has cn tags (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, cn tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - some sourcing added in early June, but there's still a fair bit here that needs cited. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: sourcing concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 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) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [26].

Battle of Dien Bien Phu edit

Notified: Raul654, Eastfarthingan, DrKay, Chuntuk, Cliché Online, WP MILHIST, WP Southeast Asia, WP Vietnam, WP France, WP Colonialism noticed in March 2022

Review section edit

As noted by Indy beetle, this older (2006 promotion) featured article needs a bit of work to get back to up standard. There's a bit of uncited text, and I'm concerned that a few spots may represent original research, such as "The choice of de Castries as the local commander at Điện Biên Phủ was, in retrospect, a bad one." being cited to a contemporary newspaper account. This should be fixable, but it will need some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC No progress on the article. Reference section needs to be reevaluated as there are some refs that are not used in the article yet, while others are creating harv errors. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Sourcing and phrasing concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delist serious issues not addressed (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references and for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - sourcing needs improvements. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: sourcing concerns remain, no edits since moved to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 7 July 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) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [27].

Bobby Eaton edit

Notified: User talk:Ldblsatin, User talk:Renamed user a2vv12zt2i, User talk:JimHolden, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Professional wrestling, talk page notice 2021-06-02

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because those issues that Hog Farm brought were still not addressed yet. Notes: "Looking at this as part of the ongoing sweeps of older FAs, and I'm seeing some issues here. The material about going missing is uncited/failed verification and should definitely be cited per WP:BLP as possibly controversial. I'm not even sure if it truly warrants a mention. Wrestling-titles is listed at WP:PW/RS as "unproven", does this source meet the high-quality RS requirement for FA? Wrestlingfigs.com is cited at one point (publisher not in citation, its the "Here is a statement from Bobby Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published book cited (the CreateSpace one, CS is a self-publisher). It appears that Archeus Communications has only published books by Gary Will and I can find basically nothing about it online, which makes me wonder if there's really much editorial oversight going on with that source. A number of the book sources also lack page numbers, which is needed for verification. This needs significant work, and a featured article review may be necessary". There are also several unsourced statements. BloatedBun (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What should be stated to be fair to the article is that a defense of the Will source was posted below my notice, and the linked RSN discussion indicates that it is a respected source. So it's a bit unfair to list the whole notice without noting that one of the sources has been strongly defended. My concerns about the various websites remain. Some issues still remain, but with Will & Duncan defensible, it is not in as bad of shape as had first appeared. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And why wasn't McPhail notified? They're still active and are responsible for over 10% of the article's content according to the authorship tool. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for boldly sending this article to FAR and not being specific. Besides the sourcing, there are several unsourced statements. If this is all resolved, feel free to make your own decisions. BloatedBun (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CreateSpace source meets the criteria for SPS. Mark James is an expert in the field, as noted in this article: [28]. This comes from Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) and explains some of his history in the business, including co-authoring autobiographies of Jerry Jarrett, Dutch Mantel, and Bill Dundee, as well as appearing as an expert on multiple series and documentaries, including WWE's Most Wanted Treasures on A&E. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So with Duncan/Will OK and James defensible, then it's just the web sources that need checked for reliability? The main content looks like it's in decent shape. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the Kayfabe Memories sources. Most of it was replaced with PWInsider, which WP:PW lists as a reliable source. The specific author is Mike Johnson, who Bob Kapur of Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) calls "one of the most credible internet wrestling reporters in the world" ([29]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also replaced WrestlingFigs source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't reviewed fully but there is a need to add citations, I have used cn templates to indicate where. starship.paint (exalt) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still cn tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC an IP address has added content to this article, but the sources that were added were not of a high-quality. Other sources in the reference section also need to be evaluated and probably removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The WP:LEAD is not. Inconsistent and poorly formatted citations. Absence of page numbers. Prose is borderline (samples: With Mr. Wrestling II and Magnum T.A. splitting up, the Midnight Express needed a new team to defend their newly won title against. ... Cornette had started his own wrestling federation, Smoky Mountain Wrestling (SMW) and welcomed Eaton with open arms. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - concerned about source-text issues here - not seeing "At one point during 1992, the Dangerous Alliance held every title except the WCW World Title, which was held by their main opponent and arch enemy Sting." in the cited source? Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No edits to the article or talk page since the above have been raised. I don't think anyone is willing to adopt and approve this article right now. Z1720 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 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) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [30].

Original Stories from Real Life edit

Notified: WikiProject Books, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2021-03-02, 2022-05-11

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about uncited text and original research. SandyGeorgia raised these issues on the article's talk page in March 2021, and the concerns have not been resolved. The original FAC nominator is deceased so I will not leave a notice on their talk page, and xtools says there are not other major contributors yet. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's what I noticed:
  1. As a literary work, shouldn't it have a {{infobox book}}? Its omission is pretty glaring here.
  2. which claimed that women should not be taught to reason since they were formed for men's pleasure -- citation is mid-sentence, which I believe MOS disallows
  3. [citation needed] at the end of the same paragraph
  4. [original research] tags all over the place
  5. Massive overquoting in "Illustrations" section
  6. "see the Blake archive for the different versions of Blake's illuminated manuscripts. Retrieved on 17 April 2007." -- is verbiage like this allowed in footnotes?

Definitely needs some work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, improvements have not occurred. Hog Farm Talk 13:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the problems I found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no progress on addressing issues raised above. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and original research. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 2 July 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) 3:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [31].

Grand Coulee Dam edit

Notified: NortyNort, Wehwalt, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Cascadia, WikiProject Dams, diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm brought up issues with updating and potential undue weight on Guthrie (I'd prefer an "in culture" prose section, if warranted by RS coverage). Another issue that I noticed is that while the article mentions displacement and compensation to Colville Indians, it doesn't say that these people were never even consulted before the dam was built. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the dam and its visitor center and they have part of the exhibit dedicated to Guthrie and his album on the Columbia. If there are other cultural references a broader section would be fine bit I don't really see an undue weight issue since he had an important role in publicizing the project. This page of Currents and Undercurrents: An Administrative History of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area has info about land purchase from the Colville, but I didn't find an affirmative statement about the lack of consultation. Reywas92Talk 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no edits, no interest shown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, as needed improvements have not occurred. Even if the Guthrie concern is more debatable, there is certainly outdated material. Hog Farm Talk 05:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist improvements needed to meet FA criteria (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 27 June 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.
  • For many reasons, I hardly edit WP anymore. I do find it a bit absurd though that a handful of editors have a handful of issues with an article... do an FA review, seem to wait for the cavalry to arrive, then demote when they inevitably don't.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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) 3:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [32].

James Robert Baker edit

Notified: WP Bio, WP LGBT studies, WP Anarchism, WP Calif, talk page notice 2022-04-16

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, and its only main editor has been deceased for years. The main issues raised on talk are reliability and quality of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having done a very, very brief skim, and notwithstanding the sources being replaced with others that may be stronger, there are definitely some bare citations that don't provide enough information to fully identify the source that we should improve. As of the current revision the most egregious examples are citations 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 28. There's also one CS1 maintenance message that needs resolving
We've also got some inconsistent mixing between CS1 and 2 going on, so we probably should chose now which cite style to use.
I'm happy to tackle the bare citations and the CS1 maintenance issues sometime tomorrow if there are no objections, and no-one else gets there first? I'll also do a check for dead URLs and ensure archiving as well when doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sideswipe9th you might want to check whether the article can be reliably sourced before putting a lot of work in to it. It had a well attended FAC, with Supports from reputable reviewers, but you can see on talk that I came along in December 2006 and objected that the referencing was not up to snuff even when it passed FAC. Then Jeff died, and things got left in poor shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly take a look for stronger sources while doing the above, but I think even clarifying some of the existing sources by providing ISBN/OCLC identifiers will help us for access and assessment of them. Some are just bare <ref></ref> tags, which I've been generally cleaning up on other articles anyway so filling these in isn't much hassle. And of course the same applies for any dead URLs that are missing archiving, but archive URLs do exist on Wayback Machine or archive.today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any bare URLs ??? I looked at those you mention above (10, 15, 16, etc), and they are also complete citations ... sources are not required to be online, so URLs aren't needed. I'm confused about what you plan to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bare references, not bare URLs. Let me give you an example which should make it clearer what I intend. Here's reference 28, without processing: <ref name="Scott">Bressart, Scott. ''Anarchy'', Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255</ref>. When rendered, this displays as: Bressart, Scott. Anarchy, Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255. It's OK, we have a title, author name (which I'll come back to), publisher name, year, and page range. But we can do better! From the citation alone, we don't know if we're looking at a book, book review, research paper, or something else. Putting "Anarchy" Scott Bressart into Google only returns results for this page, or some derivatives of it (ie sites that scrape Wikipedia). We can gleam the missing information from the text of the article, but when we do so we discover that the citation is incorrect. Anarchy is a book, written by both James Robert Baker and Scott Bressart.
So what I normally do in situations like this is to wrap that citation up in either a Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 template. I like to make each citation as clear as possible, so that in the best case, when someone comes to read the article either they only need to click a URL for citations to websites, or enter an ISBN or OCLC identifier into WorldCat or their local library to find a copy of the source we're referencing In this case, the reference would become <ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy |last1=Baker |first1=James Robert |last2=Bressart |first2=Scott |publisher=[[Alyson Books|Alyson Publications]] |isbn=9781555837433 |oclc=49297209 |pages=251-255 |year=2004}}</ref>. This then gets displayed as Baker, James Robert; Bressart, Scott (2004). Anarchy. Alyson Publications. pp. 251-255. ISBN 9781555837433. OCLC 49297209. Now we're giving the reader of the article a lot more information about the citation. We've corrected the dual author issue, and we've given them the information (ISBN/OCLC identifiers) to easily find this book on WorldCat, their local library catalogue, or in a book shop.
Now to address the URLs, you're correct that there aren't any bare URLs in the article. However we do have URL citations without archiving; 4, 6. We also have URL based citations that haven't been checked to see if they are still live since 2006; 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 (which has other problems), 25, 26, 27. Or since 2016; 3, 5, 18. So concurrently, while filling in the bare citations as I've hopefully explained more clearly above, I will also check all the separate URL based citations to find out which ones are still live, and which ones are now dead. Where a citation is dead, as long as it's using a CS1 or CS2 template, all I need to do is to change the |urlstatus= parameter from live to dead, and then the reader will automatically be directed to the archived URL instead of the now dead URL. For example I've just checked whether citation 1 is a live or dead URL. It's a dead URL. At the moment, citation 1 renders as "Robertson's official Baker Website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2006. If you click on the first link, you're sent to a blank page. However as soon as I change the urlstatus parameter, and adjust the retrieved date to today (because I've just checked it), it will render as "Robertson's official Baker website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2022. Now the first link is swapped for the archive version, and when the reader clicks on it they get to see the content that was being used to support the article text.
Hopefully this helps, but if not I'm happy to try and explain another way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, gotcha ... but just to be clear for future reference, templated citations are not a requirement, and many MANY editors prefer manual citations because of the huge and long-standing recurring issues with citation templates. If you want to do the work of converting to citation templates, while also adding additional information and archive links, that is cool, and there is no one around who is likely to object to converting to templates (as I would be the only person previously involved with the article who might do that :), but for other situations, you would need consensus before converting manual citations to citation templates. For this one, have at it ... I'm happy to see Jeffpw's work saved, as he turned in to a dear friend before his tragic passing (ie, I have a bit of a COI on this article, as I'd very much like to see Jeffpw's work saved if it can be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it's why I asked if there was any objections before embarking upon these changes. I know sometimes it can be a contentious issue, so unless I'm doing it for maintenance purposes; like filing in a bare URL, I'll generally ask before doing any such changes.
That discussion makes for some interesting reading, not sure how I missed that back in January, unless I was still recovering from Christmas. I'll be interested to see if Template:Cite Q ever gets off the ground properly, and all the underlying citation information moves to Wikidata. It would make re-use of citations across multiple articles much easier to maintain, as you'd only have to update the citation (eg if a URL becomes dead) in one place to have that change replicate to all articles that make use of it. But that is perhaps a discussion for another time and place!
Back on topic of this article, I'll have to admit my unfamiliarity with the works of the subject. I'm only here because I saw one of your WikiProject notices and figured if I can get in early this time, maybe I can help more! From what I've read so far, I'm optimistic that we can keep this as an FA. I'd be particularly interested to see if there are any citations on Baker and his work more recent than the 2004-6 citations that currently make up the bulk of the article, and if the three books and two screenplays mentioned at the end of the legacy section have been published in any form since that was last updated circa 2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citation cleanup done. I identified a few problems that I couldn't address which I'll list in a subsection below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for discussion

The following is a list of citations that require discussion to address some issues. Citation numbers are per this revision.

1 - What Title should we use here? While the domain name was Baker's full name, the operator of the site, at the time of archiving appeared to be Ron Robertson. Can we clarify this title in any way? The URL itself was just a link to the main page on that website, so there's no other obvious title to chose from amongst the text.
2 - This citation doesn't actually mention Baker in any way. Is it being used to support the description of beatniks? Is this citation needed?
6 - This citation is a link to a specific book (Testosterone) on Amazon. Even in the archived version it is a link to that book. While it does support the text, I'm sure there must be a better version available somewhere. Note: There was a better source available, I've replace this now with a piece in The Austin Chronicle.
8 - This citation links to Variety's search engine. However from the state of the citation prior to my cleanup I believe the intent was to link to Baker's obituary from 1997. I've changed the URL to that obituary, but wanted to note it here in case I was mistaken.
15 - This was an ambiguous citation previously. I was not able to find any information on a publication called "Book World", however a review by the same name and from the same author was published in The Washington Post in 1993. As it seems to support the claims used, I've swapped it to the Washington Post version for clarity.
19 - Prior to my cleanup this citation had See Also text, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here. Note: dug through the history, discovered it was part of a citation bundle which previously included the review from 3AM Magazine, which is now citation 7.
22 - Has a see also text, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. What was on page 65, of the September 11, 2000 issue of Publishers Weekly? Note: Request for a copy of this, plus additional information so we can improve this citation filed at REREQ. Another note REREQ has saved us again! Updating the source now with a link to the paywalled archived version.
23 - Alibris citation only links to the (former) front page of that website. In the archive version this does not make any mention of Baker's works. This is also true for the Biblio website, though that website is still live. This use of these sources seems rather like original research to me, is there a source we can actually use here? Note: I can't find any reliable sources that assert this, however I can find that a first edition of Boy Wonder is currently on sale for US$285. Unfortunately this looks like original research, so excising it may be best.
24 - No page number available, don't know the author's full name. I'm unable to find any archived copies of this online. Is there anywhere we can source this from? Do we know anyone in Australia, who has library access, and stores the Herald Sun in its microfilm archives? Note: After a request at WP:REREQ, a copy of this text was supplied, and I've added as much information from it as was relevant.
26 - While the source text is positive about Boy Wonder, it seems to be a review of only one person. Even in conjunction with citation 25, I'm not sure how this demonstrates Boy Wonder to be Baker's "magnum opus". Do we have any stronger/other sources for this claim? Note: As with source 23, I cannot find any reliable sources that can corroborate this beyond the opinions of an individual reviewer. At least one other reviewer on Amazon considers Fuel-Injected Dreams to be Baker's magnum opus, so this too looks like OR and should probably be removed/changed in some way.

That covers all the issues I ran into when doing the cleanup, and couldn't resolve at the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without Jeffpw, I doubt if anyone has these answers; we shall see. This is why I feared the article might not be saveable ... Jeffpw is really the only editor who worked on the article ... all others who contributed (like me) were only doing cleanup and maintenance ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still early days yet, we've only been open 24 hours so more people may come along. And worst case, I like to think of these as notes/prompts to bust out some Google-fu when I'm not quite so tired! The only one I'm pretty non-confident on finding more information about is #24, just because of it needing somewhat esoteric source access, on a continent far far away. But we may get lucky if we go through WP:WRE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Been busy the last couple of days on an RfC closure, so only getting around to looking at this list in more detail now.
Source 24. I've so far been able to establish that there are no copies of it online. The Herald Sun website does not have archives of articles that old, and none of the newspaper archive websites available through LIB have it in their collections. The State Library Victoria, in Melbourne says they have it in their microfilm archive though. So I've filed a request at REREQ, with as much information as I can, in the hopes that some editor local to that library can find the piece.
I'll try and set aside the time to dig deeper into the other sources over the next day or so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good news on source 24! REREQ have found a copy. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as a whole, aside from a throwaway reference to Tim and Pete, it does say that at the time of writing (August 1995), an "autographed hard cover first edition" of Fuel-Injected Dreams cost the author $75. As this the purchase was from a book shop in San Francisco, the currency appears to be US dollars and not Australian dollars. I'll hopefully add the relevant quote to the citation, just as soon as I can check whether or not that would be a copyvio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quotation added to source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for your work, Sideswipe9th; please ping me when I should have a fresh look, as real life is kicking my arse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do @SandyGeorgia:. I hope things start to ease up for you soon! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get your opinion on the following with respect to these citations please @SandyGeorgia::
  • 1 - How should we title Baker's website? At present we call it "Robertson's official Baker website", but that seems overly verbose.
  • 2 - Citation 2 is currently being used to support the following sentence Rebelling against his parents, he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks (anyone living as a bohemian, acting rebelliously, or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners), artists and gays alongside citation 1. As far as I can tell, it's to support the description/definition of beatniks. Do we actually need a citation supporting the definition, or can we get away with just the wikilink?
  • 23 - I'm fairly certain this is original research, and I've been unable to find any supporting citations from secondary sources on this. This citation is being used to support the sentence By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book stores. alongside citation 24. While 24 does mention the price the author of the piece paid for Fuel-Injected Dreams, it does not remark upon whether or not that is considered a "high price". I think we may need to remove this sentence?
  • 26 - Alongside citation 25, this is being used to support the text Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book. Unfortunately this seems to be the opinion of a single reviewer and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that support this claim. I've also found at least one review on Amazon that says Fuel-Injected Dreams is Baker's magnum opus. As with citation 23, I'm fairly certain this is original research and as such I think we may need to remove this sentence? Unless you know of a source that ranks books by their popularity?
That's about it for the problematic citations. There's one REREQ request I've just filed and hopefully I'll get a hit back on. Aside from that, I think we may need to now progress on to looking at the text on a per section basis? I was able to find one source that was published in 2017, so I'm hopeful that we can find other sources more recent than circa 2000-2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have formatted the citation, but there are considerable issues with this source. As one example, consider "Baker was born in Long Beach, California and raised in what he considered a 'stifling, Republican Southern Californian household'.[1]" First, I can't find that in the archived versions of the source. Second, that statement should be attributed to his partner; we don't know it to be true in his own words, so I'm not sure we should be using it at all, as his partner is not an independent source. I suspect we may find similar with everything sourced to Roberson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The second citation never mentions Baker, and is WP:SYNTH; it should be removed. On the first citation, ditto to 1. above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23 and 24; agree on remove, also WP:NOTPRICE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25 and 26; agree on remove.
I missed the FAC on this article; it was already quite troubled when I first looked at it post-promotion. Not only did standards change after 2006; I don't believe this article was worthy of promotion then, and the review was lax. I'm not convinced it can be saved, but applaud you for the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm ready to throw in the towel just yet. At this point all I've really done is look at the existing sources and clean them up into a more consistent format.
1. So I've tried searching that "stifling, Republican Southern Californian" quotation, and the only results that return for me are pages that appear to have copied the text from this article at some point in the past. You said it's attributable to Baker's partner, what's the source for that?
Wasn't is supposedly cited to his partner, Robertson's, website (not an independent source), although I am not finding it even there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found the first archived version of the original site, which does make that claim (click where it says Original site), attributed to Ron Robertson, as the entire website ... Robertson says that James Robert wrote the original website ... I can sorta/kinda attest to that, as that was what I viewed in 2006 ... apparently Robertson took it over later, but we have no earlier archived versions to prove any of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know. Searching the quotation as a whole, I only find results for this article and various websites that have copied it in the past.
Relaxing that search slightly did turn up two sources. The LA Times piece by Rivenburg which is already in the article, and a book called Sex, Needs and Queer Culture: From Liberation to the Postgay by David Alderson Google Books preview which seems to have several pages on at one of Baker's books Tim and Pete.
The book by Alderson seems as though it has a number of citations for what it asserts, though I cannot seem to access those through the preview. It may be worth seeing if we can find a copy of it for anything useful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times is paywalled ... what is the date? The google books is 2016, so they could have taken it from our article ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I forgot I have the Bypass Paywalls extension in my browser. You should be able to access the LA Times piece through this archive link. It was originally written 8 April 1993. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2, and 23-26. Agreed. Removing those now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I've been searching high and low for additional sources, with the intent of finding one or more biographies about Baker. While there's a few sources we haven't used, which I'll link at the end of this reply, I've been unable to find any biographies on Baker or research papers that discuss the author instead of one of his works. I was able to find a few research papers that cite and discuss Tim and Pete, but unfortunately they only seem to discuss the work and not the author who created the work.
I was chatting with another GA/FAR regular, and they suggested that given the circumstances we may be better working on getting this article to GA status, and look at maybe trying to bring Tim and Pete up to FA status given that there seems to be stronger sourcing for that article. That way we're still doing what we can to respect the memory of your friend.
Most kind of you to have made such an effort on this; Jeff was a dear, and the work is appreciated. Should we let this one go, then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding a miracle while doing a section by section cleanup, or someone else finding a biography that I've missed in my searches, I am tending towards this not being savable from an FA perspective. But we might still be able to get it into GA status? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, although the article is considerably improved, it was not at standard when promoted, and still is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: while I did what I could to improve sourcing, and removing any obvious OR sadly I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to bring this up to FA standard. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 26 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2022&oldid=1101263408"