Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2022

Kept edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Cirrus cloud edit

Notified: Reaper Eternal, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31, IceUnshattered, Materialscientist, Doug Weller, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Adrian J. Hunter, Headbomb, Rollcloud, JCJC777, Joshoctober16, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject Climate change, talk page notification 8 January 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because over a decade after featuring this important subject could do with checking over by subject and Wikipedia experts and bringing up to date. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there has been an "update needed" banner at the top of the "Effects on climate" section since March 2020. Z1720 (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed that. Not planning to work on the article any further. Femke (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article would benefit from a gallery. I think it's important for understanding to make these photos bigger, which cannot be done currently without WP:SANDWICHING. Femke (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked briefly and found uncited text ~~and page ranges too broad for verification~~. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the IPCC being annoying and giving weird page numbers (page 66 of chapter 7). The final formatting of the 4000-page book can take years, so these are temporary page numbers. I've given the section as well, which should remain the same in the formatted text. Femke (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fiddled with the loc to try to make that more clear; pls adjust as needed! (Can we make it 7:66 ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit a day ago but I added a gallery, just wanted to know if someone else was going to help add more cirrus cloud photos to make the gallery bigger. Rollcloud (Talk) 15:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people heavily involved in taking this article to FA, I am not a huge fan of galleries of images. I don't think they add much to an article, since people could go to commons instead to find large numbers of images. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are more skillful at searching commons than me but I generally wade through lots of dross before finding good pics there Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you there, but I still dislike galleries, unless it's relevant to the article. For example, a gallery of Picasso's works would fit his article. There are uncountable numbers of reasonable pictures of cirrus clouds. If we really want a gallery of images, then I think that it should include one of each species and variety of cirrus cloud, and it should be placed directly beneath the paragraph discussing the species and varieties of cirrus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Sorry I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 let us know if any/some/all of the issues have been addressed, and whether there are any items you see that still need to be addressed, and whether progress is being made. At a month in to the FAR, you might also be entering a declaration (like "Hold, work underway" or "Close without FARC" or "Move to FARC"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who made improvements. I will read carefully again to check but from the point of view of a layman and Wikipedian I have no further suggestions or complaints. But I really have no idea whether this is FA quality now from a scientific point of view. So do I have to say "Move to FARC" so other people can vote? Or can they say here if they think it is scientifically FA standard? I mean cloud experts. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah are you able to add anything on this subject, for the rest of us non-weather editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything specifically that's lacking. Noah^Talk 22:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time getting past the lead; the prose and organization could use more work.

An article like this will be read by middle-school students, and the lead should be digestible to about a 12-year-old, and yet I had to google to figure out just what a cirrus cloud is, because the first paragraph was not well organized, and I hit a dead link at (now archived) https://web.archive.org/web/20081108034842/https://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcirrus.htm to a very old article which says something different than in the article.
USA today says they form above 18,000 feet, the lead says 16,500 feet, and the body of the article mentions 13,000 feet. USA today is not a high-quality weather source, and all of this needs to be sorted. But at least it tells me why cirrus clouds are thin, which was nice to know.
Next, in trying to reorganize the lead, I find that text is cited in the lead that should not need to be cited, as it should be already cited in the body. So, I went looking for a better citation for mare's tail in the body, and found that text is uncited in the body.
Do we expect a middle-school student to be able to digest this sentence without having to click out? "They also form from the outflow of tropical cyclones and from the anvils of cumulonimbus clouds." (When I did click out to anvil, I still couldn't determine what it was saying.
While USA today is not the kind of source we should be using here, it does have the simple, clear language and definition that should be in the lead.
The organization seems off; there is a lot of content in Description that isn't, and Formation seems lacking. Effects on climate is also Climate effects on clouds, so that is an odd section heading.

Sourcing and prose should be checked throughout, and the lead rewritten to be a more accessible overview that younger ages and reading levels will access. After finding the altitude at which they form isn't clear or cited to high-quality sourced, I stopped there. More work needed. The lead goes into detail which might be above the reading and education level of where this article should aim.

I don't expect every article to come out of FAR perfect, but this is a basic topic, with broad appeal across many ages, so we should get it right and make it shine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Chidgk1 this is the kind of feedback that I meant is needed, so knowledgeable editors are guided towards what to work on :) I don't know a thing about weather either, but it doesn't take specialist knowledge to assess the readability of the lead and pick up the sorts of things I mentioned above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ah OK thanks for telling me that the aim is middle school readability. Maybe other editors can prove me wrong but I think that will be impossible so I now say Move to FARC.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, March 14, 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1 not throughout; it's the lead that needs to provide an accessible overview, and sixth to eighth graders are likely to access this topic. I think it not impossible at all; we just need some of the sourcing and organization fixed so the lead can be cleaned up. From the sources I can check (which aren't necessarily the best sources), I am unsure Mare's tail belongs in the lead, as it appears to be not so common, but that depends on better sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, thanks for this. Unfortunately, regarding the first point, I am not an educator and unsure what constitutes a 7th-grade reading level. I'm an engineer, not an educator. :(

Regarding your second point, it is due to cirrus formation altitude being influenced heavily by latitude (and hence local tropopause height), season, and humidity. I can try to clarify this more, but the 13,000 ft claim is for the lowest formation in polar regions during winter with a gradient towards 21,000 ft floor in tropical regions. Dowling and Radke cover some of this in their paper. I wasn't aware that USA Today wouldn't be a reliable source when I initially took this article from stub to GA, but I'll remove the reference to it and replace them with more high-quality scientific references (i.e. Dowling & Radke). I believe USA Today simply took the average cirrus altitude for the continental US. Another likely thing that I'll do is switch from altitude ranges, which are highly variable and somewhat difficult to read, to mean altitude, which is a single number and easier on the eyes. Additionally, most cirrus form in a relatively narrow altitude band around the mean altitude, so this should give a better understanding to readers. I will briefly cover the altitude range in the body. Ironically, it was (and still is) extremely difficult to find a reliable source for the most common nickname "mares' tails".

Unfortunately, there will always be some mildly-technical jargon like "anvil clouds". I could say something like "blown-out top of a thunderstorm cloud", but that ironically is probably more confusing to anybody who has ever heard of an anvil cloud.

Regarding organization, I'll try to take a stab at that soon. The "description" section covers both the macroscopic and microscopic descriptions of cirrus clouds, in addition to various bulk properties like humidity. The "formation" section is rather bare because the article doesn't (and shouldn't) cover the process of deposition (phase transition). Rather, I chose to cover where cirrus clouds form, and the common whether phenomenon that produce these conditions. Possibly, the humidity section should be moved from the "description" to the "formation" section, since humidity influences formation.

Chidgk1, the entire article cannot be converted to middle-school level readability simply due to the physics involved. Nor do I believe it should. The lede is another matter, and hopefully someone better at writing than I am can take a stab at improving it.

What are your thoughts on these potential changes, SandyGeorgia? Hopefully, I'll be able to improve the article enough to keep this as a FA.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE, do what you can; if you get it well sourced and accurate, I can pick away at making sure the lead is digestible when you're done. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the main source for the comparison section is dead (mostly moved to here and updated). However, it now copies Wikipedia, including the featured picture at the top of this article! I'm thinking I might have to replace it entirely since this is now a circular reference. Thoughts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal Just to make sure I am following, could you please spell out which source is which? That is, which source do you suspect is copying Wikipedia, and from which source to which source was content moved? I am asking because I think we are talking about all public domain sources, so it is possible that we copied them, which is permissible but should be attributed. I can check on all of that, but need to be sure I'm checking the right thing.
On your general question, we should never use a source that copies content from Wikipedia, as that by definition would not be a reliable source. But my hunch is that is not what happened here; it's much more likely that we copied from public domain sources, and just need to reflect that with attribution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The archived version of the "JetStream NWS" source (citation #47 in this version) does not include the featured picture at the top of the article, whereas the new version copies the featured picture. When I wrote that section (I think I wrote it...was 12 years ago!), I did not copy from the NWS. In any case, I've redone that section a little bit, removed redundant (and possibly inaccurate) information, and updated the sources to use Funk's paper, which contained that information anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reaper Eternal Ah, I did not realize you originally wrote the article, so less work needed. And I can't decipher exactly which text you are referring to, but Earwig copyvio detector turns up no problem. I am still trying to follow what the concern is. You are saying that this old version of an NOAA site did not include an image that weather.gov does. Which image are you referring to when you "featured picture"? Could you please link to the Wikipedia image of concern so I can be certain we are on the same page? Are you saying they copied our image, our text, or both? I can ask a copyright person to look in here, but would prefer we are precise about what they need to look at first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:CirrusField-color.jpg is the image in question. It's currently in the infobox, and in the version the article was promoted in, it was the picture at the top of the article. Note how it's now in the weather.gov site captioned as "cirrus clouds over a field" but not present in the old citation. In short, weather.gov copied our image, so it makes me doubt that that particular page is trustworthy enough anymore. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood now. But it remains to be determined if our image was truly "ours". I will ping in someone to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was wondering File:Cloud types en.svg is preferable to File:Wolkenstockwerke.png (that we are using now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely better. I've updated the article accordingly. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've caught up now. You are saying that File:CirrusField-color.jpg, a Featured picture, is used at weather.gov. But they aren't crediting Wikipedia Commons. I believe our license on that image says they must give credit, so yes, that is a problem. Do I have this right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elcobbola: might you lend a hand here? Featured picture File:CirrusField-color.jpg is used at weather.gov, but the image is not attributed to Wikipedia. We have had that image for almost two decades. The National Weather Service first shows up at archive.org in 2015. Older archive versions from the National Weather Service did not have that image. (I am having a hard time following, but I think Reaper Eternal is saying that the NOAA site is an older version of the weather.gov site.) Can we be certain that Featured picture was "ours", and if so, is weather.gov failing to follow the license? Because if so, this casts doubt on the reliability of a source used throughout Wikipedia weather articles, weather.gov. Thanks for any assistance! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, if we had the image first they are violating the licence. But I am bothered by the broken files on the weather.gov page - I think it may be outdated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we have to be sure we had it first; there could be an "irregularity" on our side :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse image searches and archive snapshots are often of limited use for images this old, so generally considerations are based on other indicators such as EXIF data, uploader history, etc. File:CirrusField-color.jpg was taken with an Olympus C5050Z, which is the same camera used in the uploader's selfies (e.g., File:Subtle (Facebook).jpg and File:PiccoloWave.jpg) and certain of the uploader's other cloud images (e.g., File:Nov20-05-Nimbostratus.jpg, File:Contrails-forming-an-X.jpg, File:CumulusField-01.jpg, etc.) Consistent camera model--and indeed over disparate subjects (clouds, selfies, hamsters, Skittles, etc.), suggesting the uploader did not simply take an existing portfolio of cloud images--is generally a strong indicator that an image is indeed the uploader's. From a Commons perspective, I wouldn't consider this to rise to the threshold of significant doubt, especially in conjunction with AGF. So, yes, I think the balance of current information says this is "ours." Regarding use on weather.gov, an anecdote: a year or two ago, a Minnesota state employee was uploading images to promote Minnesota's True North campaign. She'd been given a portfolio of PR images and been told to disseminate them to social media and, obviously, was blissfully unaware of WMF's purpose, her lack of authority to license IP on behalf of the State of Minnesota, and that the State of Minnesota was not even the copyright holder for most (all) of the images. In an era where digital images are indiscriminately disseminated, this is exceedingly common; government employees and sites, while generally better than average, are not immune to ignorance of IP license provisions (which I don't mean to be pejorative; they are genuinely without related awareness or knowledge). That said, though, I might suggest that reliability is relative. Assertions made by weather.gov regarding atmospheric phenomena and regarding intellectual properties are, as we say, zwei Paar Schuhe--different animals. Эlcobbola _talk 15:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Elcobbola; you are, as always, a rock star. Reaper Eternal so the image likely is "ours", National Weather Service probably did take it from us without proper attribution, but that doesn't necessarily mean the National Weather Service is not reliable for weather info. Some one with some time on their hands should write to NWS and tell them of their breach of our license. @Nikkimaria and Buidhe: who probably want to read this from an image point of view as frequent image reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: I've gone through the article now and made several changes:

I reviewed (and replaced as needed) any potentially-unreliable sources. I left the USA Today source supporting only the explanation of why cirrus clouds are thin, since all technical reliable sources that I found simply assume the reader will recognize this. (They also don't tend to discuss "obvious" properties like color or colloquial nicknames like "mare's tails".) I believe it is reliable enough for this basic claim. One potential thing that remains (and I can solve it if needed), is that some papers are only referenced once. They are included in the footnotes, but I could move them to the bibliography and use {{harvnb}} if that is better.
I checked for additional information regarding current topics (climate change), and only found an article from NASA in 2013 stating that further research is needed to determine if rising temperatures will increase cirrus clouds (positive feedback loop) or decrease them (negative feedback). There is plenty of current discussion on cirrus cloud thinning, a dubious geoengineering approach, but that's a topic for another article. It is still briefly mentioned in the cirrus cloud article.
I reorganized some information so that paragraphs now only cover their main topic. Over the years, copyedits and general additions to the article had resulted in information getting scattered.
I reviewed and cleaned up the altitude claims in the article. Part of the reason for the disagreement was that cirrus clouds do not form in a narrowly-defined band of altitude range(s). I also switched to using average altitude, since that is more useful information for the reader. Do note that the altitude ranges given for high-, mid-, and low-level clouds in the "Comparison to other clouds" section do not necessarily agree with the full range of altitudes within which cirrus clouds may be found. This is because these ranges are descriptive, not definitive. A cirrus cloud that forms under the usual 6000m / 20,000ft "lower limit" of high-level clouds is still a cirrus cloud, and similarly if an altostratus cloud peeks over that "upper limit", it doesn't magically become cirrostratus.
I checked for factual errors and corrected several that had been introduced, possibly through copyediting, including a recently-added claim that cirrus fibratus is the source of the mare's tails nickname rather than the hooked form cirrus uncinus.

It probably still needs another pair of eyes to go through the prose and improve it, since I'm the original author of most of the material in the article and thus have trouble seeing issues. :) Once that's done, I hope this article will still be considered FA-quality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look it over, most likely tomorrow, as I have a commitment later today. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I am still concerned that we need to bring down a bit the reading level of the lead. I may not have gotten most of this right, but these are samples of the direction I suggest heading ...

"Cirrus clouds can form from the outflow of tropical cyclones and from the anvils of cumulonimbus clouds. Cirrus clouds arrive ahead of the frontal systems that can be associated with those storms." I have to click out twice (anvil and cumulonimbus), and am still unclear what the anvil is (the article says flat-top, but the images look flat-bottomed to me), and they form from something that they preceded ? Can this whole thing be glossed over with much simpler language ... something like, "they can also form from moisture generated from other types of clouds"? We don't have to have all the detail in the lead; it's in the body.
"Latent heat, released as water vapor deposits to form the cirrus cloud, raises the temperature of the air beneath the main cloud layer by an average of 10 °C (18 °F)." Can we avoid latent heat in the lead by something like ... As water vapor deposits to form the cirrus cloud, energy is released that raises the temperature of the air beneath the main cloud layer". Skip the amount of temperature drop, keep it simple, detail in the body. But by the way, tell the reader why we care that the temperature raises ... what does that temperature change result in ...
I clicked on fall streak and still don't know what it is... can that sentence be glossed to simplify? Can we just say ... "They may be a sign that storms are on the way, but cirrus themselves drop only small ice crystals, which evaporate as they fall and never reach the ground." Shorter sentences, simpler concepts, rest is in the article.
"Jet stream-powered cirrus clouds can grow long enough to stretch across continents, while remaining only a few kilometers deep." Would this work ? "The jet stream can cause the thin clouds to grow long enough to stretch across continents." Again we don't have to have all the detail in the lead.
" Reflection and refraction of sunlight or moonlight by the ice crystals in cirrus clouds produces optical phenomena, such as sun dogs and halos." --> ?? --> Sun dogs and halos can result when light from the sun or moon hits ice crystals in the cloud and is reflected or changes direction.
"Many individual filaments can form a sheet of high cloud, called cirrostratus. Convection at high altitudes can produce another genus of high cloud, cirrocumulus, with a pattern of small cloud tufts containing droplets of supercooled water." --> ?? --> There are two other kinds of high-level cirrus clouds. Individual cloud threads can join together to make a high fabric-like sheet of clouds, called cirrostratus. Cirrocumulus have a pattern of small cloud tufts and contain droplets of supercooled water."

Just ideas ... you will surely need to adjust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the lead

We were told in the lead they are thin, but the first thing we encounter in the body is thick. Can "Cirrus clouds range in thickness from 100 m (330 ft) to 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)." --> ?? --> "Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, ranging between 100 m (330 ft) and 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)."
We shouldn't assume that knowledge gained in the lead transfers to the body, as a reader may go straight to the body. So, we have a problem here:
There are, on average, 30 ice crystals per liter (110 per gallon), but this ranges from one ice crystal per 10,000 liters (3.7 ice crystals per 10,000 US gallons) to 10,000 ice crystals per liter (37,000 ice crystals per US gallon), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.
that we are talking about these ice crystals in these clouds before we have established that cirrus clouds are made of ice crystals. Does the Formation section need to move up, before the Description section?

Then, we have a different problem of switching units, which confuses the brain (per liter moves to per 10,000 liters, so can we reformulate to keep the same units (per liter) together and give the reader a clue that a change is going to happen when we switch --> ?? --> "The average number of ice crystals in cirrus clouds is 30 per liter (110 per gallon). There may be as many as 10,000 per liter (37,000 ice crystals per US gallon), and as few as one per 10,000 liters (3.7 ice crystals per 10,000 US gallons), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.

How does 37,000 per gallon --> 3.7 per 10,000 gallons become eight orders of magnitude? Looks ten times greater from here ... can we state that more simply ?

Stopping there for now to get your feedback, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten cubic metres is shown at https://removalspackagingmaterials.com/smartblog/6_ten-cubic-metres . So if I calculated right in that volume there could be as few as one ice crystal or as many as 100 million. (average 300 thousand) But how to show or describe that volume? Volume of concrete mixer truck per https://www.themeasureofthings.com/results.php?comp=volume&unit=cm&amt=10&sort=pr&p=1 ? Or better instead describe min/av/max distance between crystals - roughly 10 m / 3 cm / half cm I think but please check my maths. Or a shipping container is 33.2 cu m so could put crystals in that as I guess most readers will have seen a shipping container. I think I prefer shipping container as avoids mentioning US units. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1, I'd be happy to include the ice crystal concentration in terms of shipping containers, but it would be absolutely impossible for me to find a reliable source discussing ice crystal concentrations in such units. Or does that fall under basic calculations and thus does not need a source? I've currently redone the concentration slightly to spell out the words, separate US and metric units, and use a consistent denominator. Thoughts? Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you're getting at. I'll try to reduce the amount of technical terminology in the lede. However, would it be reasonable for me to describe the technical term rather than simply stating it, and, while doing so, still wikilink to the correct article? For example, consider something like this for a rewrite of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the article:

"Cirrus clouds can form from the tops of thunderstorms and tropical cyclones."

This removes the references and links to outflow (meteorology) and anvil cloud, but preserves those to cumulonimbus cloud (now in layman's terms) and tropical cyclone. I'd keep the term "tropical cyclone" simply because "hurricane", "typhoon", etc. are all region-specific terms.

Regarding the content beyond the lede, I will probably need to reorganize a fair chunk of the article to kick the heavy stuff farther down. Currently, the entire description section is roughly organized from microscopic properties to macroscopic, but that organization can't stay if we want a more easy read at the start of the body. I'll need to do some thinking about this, but my initial thoughts are:

Break the "description" section in two. The first four paragraphs will be moved to their own section (called "properties"?) and placed just above the "optical phenomena" section. The ice crystal information needs to precede that section because the shape and density of the ice crystals affects the presence or absence of optical effects. However, it isn't needed for a reader to understand what is or isn't a cirrus cloud.
Move the final paragraph of the "description" section (covering cirrus species) to the start of the section. Move the paragraph on virga to just after this, and place the cloud cover paragraph last.
If we cannot assume the reader has read the lede, write a new paragraph just ahead of the paragraph on cirrus species covering the general appearance of cirrus clouds. This paragraph probably won't need to be particularly long. The order of paragraphs in the "description" section will then be: General cirrus appearance -> specific cirrus species -> [image gallery] -> virga / fall streaks -> cloud cover.
(Optional) Move the "formation" section above the pared-down "description" section, but I still think that we'll want to discuss what in general constitutes cirrus clouds and/or what they look like before we discuss how they form. I don't feel strongly either way, though.

What are your all's thoughts on these potential changes? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal you've got the idea, and the wording is best left to you, then. Think about several things for younger readers who may access the top of the article. Shorter sentences. Keep a link in the lead if you need, but never force the reader to click out to understand the sentence. At that stage, they should be clicking out only if they want to learn more. Keep units going a parallel direction, otherwise give the reader a heads up if you're going to switch gears on what units you're talking about-- remember that the non-scientific types glaze over as soon as they see a number; spoonfeed, simplicity, don't make extra work for eye-to-brain. Don't assume reader has understood or read all of the lead. Build in levels of complexity as you go. Don't do sentence construction that makes a reader go forwards, then backwards, then forwards again. as that adds complexity. By that I mean as in the example of the sentence about sundogs and halos. The thing you're telling the reader about is sundogs and halos, so make them the beginning of the sentence, get that clear right away, rather than two complex words (refraction and reflection) ... very straightforward sentence construction at the top, but you can get more complex as you move down. Please ping me when I should look in again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, you can also do manual converts to make numbers easier. What I often do is put in the convert to get the converted numbers that I then type out manually. So

Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, ranging between 100 m (330 ft) and 8,000 m (26,000 ft), with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)

could become

Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds. Their depth can range from 100 m to 8,000 m (330 ft to 26,000 ft), with an average depth of 1,500 m (4,900 ft)."

or

Cirrus clouds are thin compared to other types of clouds, with an average thickness of 1,500 m (4,900 ft). Their thickness can range from 100 m to 8,000 m (330 ft to 26,000 ft)."

Shorter sentences, and if you think in feet, your eye can skip straight to the second set of numbers ... less convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I think I'm going to have to change the word "thin" to something else. When I and other sources were describing cirrus as "thin", we meant "optically thin", as in they don't really block out much sunlight. You can see straight through most cirrus clouds. Compare that to a cumulus cloud (one of those little puffy clouds in summer on a sunny day) which is completely opaque. Cirrus clouds themselves are absolutely colossal. NASA has a really nice image here showing the scale of cirrus clouds—the ones in that image are over 200 km long, roughly 30 km wide, and varying between 3 and 5 km thick. Compare that to the absolutely tiny (in comparison—they're still several cubic kilometers each!) but much denser cumulus clouds lower in altitude in the same image.

I might incorporate that image (should be {{pd-usgov}}) into the article to try to give some sort of sense of scale. It'll probably go nicely where the article discusses cloud depth.

I don't want to give the impression that cirrus clouds can't be "thick", so if anybody has some good synonyms that convey the concept of "light and translucent", I'm all ears. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Transparent", "glassy", "opaque", "dark"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency isn't the same thing as translucency. "Glassy" isn't really how I'd describe a cirrus cloud, though. "Opaque" and "dark" are antonyms. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know but if we are describing for lay people, somewhat inexact terminology may be justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood ... that's why I leave the final to you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal asked me for a copyedit on my talk page. As I said there I don't trust my prose enough for a copyedit, but a few comments on this version:

I don't think these two statements in the lead that have citations should remain there, other than perhaps the etymology.

I've moved the jet stream statement to the body and expanded on it a bit with information about jet streaks (bands in the jet stream). This should make it more relevant to the rest of the article. I've moved then etymology to the opening paragraph in the "description" section and shortened the etymology sentence in the lead. I'm not opposed to removing it entirely. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement on warming should be longer than one sentence, and "greenhouse effect" is a poor link.

I added a sentence on climate change feedback loops to clarify why cirrus clouds are important, but don't want to add too much more due to the need for summary style. I also don't understand why "greenhouse effect" is a poor link. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with "greenhouse" is that when we speak of the greenhouse effect, we usually mean trace gases like CO2 not clouds. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the lead section is too heavy on jargon, myself. But "micron" and "supercooled" may warrant an explanation.

"Supercooled" is now briefly explained in-text, and I changed "micron" to "thousandth of a millimeter". Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's "wind shear"?

First occurrence of "wind shear" is now wikilinked and explained in-text. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on data taken in the United States," is there a more global assessment?

Unfortunately, that was the only study I could find that went into depth on cloud cover changes. There is a more global study referenced later in the same paragraph, but it only mentions annually-averaged cloud cover. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The formation section starts off with a discussion of formation processes, talks a lot about elevation and then returns to formation processes. I think this is a bit too jumpy.

I've split this paragraph in two. There's now only a brief mention of altitude in the first paragraph, since the reader does need to know that cirrus clouds are high to understand why they are translucent (high altitude + low absolute humidity = not a particularly dense cloud). However, the meat of the altitude / thickness discussion is now in the second paragraph. I've also added more comparative text to try to split up the numbers a bit to make them easier to read. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The aerosol sentence should probably be expanded or merged somewhere.

A PALMS experiment showed that organic particles don't tend to form cirrus cloud ice crystals. (Water vapor prefers mineral or metallic nucleation seeds.) Do you think I should add this information to the organic aerosol comment, or just remove it altogether? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's frequently cited, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes to adding the information or yes to removal? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to adding the information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's "outflow", "rainbands" and "eyewalls"?

"Outflow" changed to "outflowing winds". "Rainbands" changed to "bands of rain". "Eyewall" briefly explained. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thunderstorms often aren't cyclones, so I would retitle the section.

Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's "lidar", "Particle Analysis by Laser Mass Spectrometry", "supersaturation" and "hygrometer"?

Lidar is now explained in text as "laser-based radar". Supersaturation is also now explained in-text the first time it is mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm not sure what you're asking for regarding hygrometers and the PALMS instrument. The text already explains what these instruments are used for and what they do. Do you want me to explain how they work? I'm concerned that this will just exceed the scope of the article and make it nearly unreadable, since the PALMS instrument especially is difficult to understand, using high-energy UV laser ablation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that for long-winded explanations, footnotes like these I employed at TRAPPIST-1 may work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PALMS system is now roughly explained in a footnote. Unfortunately, explaining how mass spectrometry works will require the reader to understand college-level physics, so the device will have to remain a bit of a "magic box". Hygrometer is also now defined in a footnote. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I am familiar with much of the jargon but the article shouldn't presume too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia and Chidgk1, I think I have resolved most of the issues now. The article should now be much easier to read, and the material is now sorted in such a way that the heavy reading in the experiment methodology and results section is pushed way down. Even that should now be reorganized and rewritten in a way to reduce number overload. The description section now also includes a general description of cirrus clouds—perfect for people who aren't interested in reading the lead section. I've also gone through the article several times and reduced as much technical jargon as I can, either by explaining it in layman's terms (e.g. "virga" -> "falling streaks of ice crystals that dissipate before reaching the ground" in the lead section) or by giving brief definitions in the article text. This should help readers not have to click out of the article a bunch. I'm not a huge fan of the short and choppy sentences in the lead section, but I understand that it's necessary for middle schoolers (some of whom may not even speak English as their native language) to be able to understand the gist of the article. Thank you all for your assistance, and let me know if you see anything else that needs improving. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will read through tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am making copyedits as I go; please revert anything I mess up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spell out units on first occurrence. For example, here:
"Cirrus forms between 4,000 and 20,000 m" the casual reader does not know if this is miles or meters.
Done. I think this was the only case—all other units are spelled out first, or spelled out always if the units would be difficult to read like /yd^3. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "Bands of faster-moving air...can create arcs of cirrus cloud hundreds of kilometers (miles) long." Should I bother with the "miles" in parentheses at all? There's no real defined length for these massive arcs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's OK ... can't see how to address that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"form in the atmospheres of other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune; and on Titan, one of Saturn's larger moons." Does this mean to say including? It looks like a complete list: are there others?
Technically, given that there are probably billions of extra-solar planets, chances are almost certain that another planet will have cirrus clouds. However, this is purely hypothetical, so I have removed "including". I could clarify that this only applies to solar planets, but I think that would just make the lead harder to understand without telling the reader anything useful. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't some of the names in the infobox require italics?
Oof. I'm not a huge infobox fan. I suppose technically I should italicize all the species and variety names listed in the infobox, but that just looks a bit silly. I can do this if you want, though I'd personally prefer to just delete the infobox since it contains nothing of value and the article passed FAC without one. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I. Hate. Infoboxes. Does that sum it up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as permission to make the infobox go away then. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we say cirrus, and sometimes cirrus clouds. Can this sentence start with just cirrus, to avoid the redundant use of the word cloud?
Cirrus clouds are wispy clouds made of long strands of ice crystals ... --> ... Cirrus are wispy clouds made of long strands of ice crystals ...
Sure. Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"While the clouds are usually white due to their ice crystal composition, the rising or setting sun can color them ... " --> We haven't yet talked about formation here, so ?? --> Ice crystals in the clouds cause them to usually be white, but the rising or setting sun can color them ...
Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph of description, floccus and spissatus are never defined.
I've added information on these two species. The floccus species especially is largely irrelevant, but it is still defined now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Intortus is italicized in the rest of the para, but not here ? " ... are a form of cirrus intortus that has been ... "
Corrected. I'm honestly just following the guidelines for plants (hah!) where genus, species, and variety are all italicized. Most articles that cover cloud species and/or varieties are highly technical and don't italicize anything, but I don't think they're a good source for what should or shouldn't be italicized. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I'm going to stop there for now, as I just made some big changes to layout which you will need to check before I continue. If you hate the removal of the gallery, now is your chance to revert, but I think this makes it much easier to read the text and compare with the images next to the text. I'll continue once you give me the green light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much dislike galleries (see my begrudging comments near the top of this FAR), so I am happy to see it gone. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper EternalI felt like it interrupted the flow of prose, and it is easier to compare with the images being closer to the text. Shall I continue now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper Eternal I am trying to rework the last paragraph of description, as it is tough going. This quote from the source is giving me fits:

The global cirrus cover has been estimated to be about 20–25%, but recent analysis using the satellite infrared channels at the 15-micrometer carbon dioxide (CO2) band has shown that their occurrence is more than 70% over the tropics.

This seems ambiguous. a) On average, 70% of the tropics have cirrus cloud cover at any time (which doesn't seem right to me, having lived in the tropics where the sky is often Big Sky Montana clear and blue). Or b) of the 20 to 25 % average cloud cover globally, 70% of that occurs in the tropics ??? See below what I am trying to do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current	Ideas
Based on data taken in the United States, cirrus cloud cover varies diurnally and seasonally. In the summer, at noon, the cover is the lowest, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus. Around midnight, the cloud cover increases to around 28%. In winter, the cirrus cloud cover did not vary appreciably from day to night. These percentages include clear days and nights, as well as days and nights with other cloud types, as lack of cirrus cloud cover. When these clouds are present, the typical coverage ranges from 30% to 50%. Based on satellite data, cirrus covers an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth's surface. In the tropical regions, these clouds cover around 70% of the region's surface area.	Cirrus covering the Earth is constantly changing in type, position and amount; globally, an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth is covered. (a or b --> a. Satellite data indicates that the cirrus cloud cover in tropical regions is around 70% of the area. or b. Satellite data indicates that 70% of the global cloud cover occurs in tropical areas. Data from the United States indicates that cirrus cloud cover varies during the day and by season. In the northern summer months (roughly June through September), the cover is the lowest at noon, with an average of 23% of the United States' land area covered by cirrus. Around midnight, the cloud cover increases to about 28%. In the northern winter months (roughly December through March), the cirrus cloud cover does not change appreciably from day to night. Days without cirrus cloud cover include clear days and nights, as well as days and nights with other cloud types. When cirrus are present, they typically cover 30% to 50% of the sky.

getting global first, then local to US

explain constantly changing cloud cover

clarify what the 70% is

addressing MOS:SEASON issues

avoid around ... around, change second around to about

The "These percentages include ..." sentence was a jumble ...

Help! By the way, templates for done and the like are discouraged at FAC and FAR, as they cause Wikipedia:Template limits problems in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've removed the templates now.

It hadn't occurred to me that the sentence could have a double meaning. Let me find a second source to make sure. (Bear in mind that most of the tropics are over oceans, so what you might see from land isn't necessarily indicative of the mean.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will leave this (mess I made) to you, and move on to the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know the CALIPSO satellite has recently been taking cirrus cloud measurements. I'll see if I can find any updated research on cloud coverage from their findings. If I find such research, it might also remove the need for US-specific measurements that had to be used when I wrote the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I strongly doubt that 70% means "70% of the 25% global cirrus cloud cover", or the USA alone would have most of the remaining cirrus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I was able to find some sources utilizing CALIPSO satellite data confirming that the "70% in the tropics" is, in fact, up to 70% of the sky averaged annually for a specific area. In short, some tropical regions, mostly Congo, southeast Asia, and Amazon have roughly 70% cirrus cloud cover, whereas other tropical regions have less.

Gasparini, B; Meyer, A; Neubauer, D; Münch, S; Lohmann, U (1 March 2018). "Cirrus Cloud Properties as Seen by the CALIPSO Satellite and ECHAM-HAM Global Climate Model". Journal of Climate. 31 (5). American Meteorological Society: 1983–2003. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0608.1. Retrieved 19 March 2022.
Heymsfield; Krämer; Luebke; Brown; Cziczo; Franklin; Lawson; Lohmann; McFarquhar; Ulanowski; Van Tricht (1 January 2017). "Cirrus Clouds". Meteorological Monographs. 58 (1). American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-16-0010.1. Retrieved 19 March 2022.

The former of those sources states that previous estimations of tropical cirrus cloud cover might be overestimated by as much as 15-20% due to insufficient backscatter filtering. (Basically, they're saying that high humidity in the tropics might have confused some earlier instruments / measurements and made them overestimate cirrus cloud cover.) Furthermore, the modern measurements show a global cirrus cloud cover of 31-32%, not 20-25%. I'll try to rewrite the whole paragraph, and do you think I should just drop the USA-specific information given that (1) the CALIPSO data is worldwide, and (2) those measurements have been shown to be outdated and potentially inaccurate? Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wise to me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and completely rewritten the paragraph. There's no more USA-specific information, since it's largely irrelevant now that the CALIPSO global dataset can be used. The 70% claim is now clarified to be more local and not the entire tropical band. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need clarification?

Cirrus forms from tropical cyclones, and is commonly seen fanning out from the eye walls of hurricanes.

It reads as if they only or always from tropical cyclones ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Cirrus can form from tropical cyclones and is commonly seen fanning out from the eye walls of tropical cyclones." Alternatively, would this more concise version be preferred, even though it only implies formation rather than stating it directly? "[Sheets of] Cirrus commonly fans out from the eye walls of tropical cyclones." Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best left to you ... but I'm becoming confused about whether we use the word cirrus in the singular or plural. I think I like the second version better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo in my example. It's plural. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before this statement, we haven't been told they are increasing (maybe that is related to the 70% issue above )?

and increased air traffic has been implicated as one possible cause of the increasing frequency and amount of cirrus in Earth's atmosphere ...

Should basic data about the increase be mentioned earlier in this section, before the contrails section? Because I see it also comes in to play later in the Climate change sections ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's mostly only relevant for the climate change section. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why these numbers are all spelled out rather than in digits; it is very hard to read.

Cirrus clouds have an average ice crystal concentration of three hundred thousand ice crystals per ten cubic meters (two hundred seventy thousand ice crystals per ten cubic yards). The concentration ranges from as low as one ice crystal per ten cubic meters to as high as one hundred million ice crystals per ten cubic meters (just under one ice crystal per ten cubic yards to seventy-seven million ice crystals per ten cubic yards), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.
--> Cirrus clouds have an average ice crystal concentration of 300,000 per 10 cubic meters (270,000 per 10 cubic yards). The concentration ranges from as low as 1 ice crystal per 10 cubic meters to as high as 100 million per 10 cubic meters (just under one 1 per 10 cubic yards to 77 million per 10 cubic yards), a difference of eight orders of magnitude.

I'm still not seeing eight orders of magnitude. I tried reading the source, but none of this is on page 977 of Dowling & Radke, as cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eight orders of magnitude is just mathematics (100 million = 1e8; 1 = 1e0; 8 - 0 = 8). I spelled out the numbers to hopefully make it a little easier to understand, but if that's having the opposite effect, I'll change it back. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back to numbers, though "million" is still spelled out to avoid zero overload. (i.e. I have 300 million instead of 300,000,000.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what these says/means:

Cirrus in temperate regions typically have the shapes segregated by type. What type of what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Cirrus in temperate regions typically have the various ice crystal shapes separated by type." Alternatively, would this complete rewrite be preferable? "The ice crystals in temperate cirrus clouds typically stratify [maybe use "separate" or "layer" instead?] by shape." Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With Femke, Jo-Jo and Hurricane Noah already through, I think we're just about good to go here. But since we're aiming for readability for a broad audience, let's make sure Buidhe and Hog Farm give it a good going over as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, thank you very much for helping me with this—I couldn't have done it without you! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for teaching me about cirrus clouds ... I feel like such a smarty pants now ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe edit

They form between 4,000 and 20,000 meters (13,000 and 66,000 feet) above sea level and tend to form at higher elevations in the tropics. <- Confusing: is it higher than this range in the tropics? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote sentence to clarify. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"~~can be used to~~ predict the arrival of rain or storms" <- passive voice and human-centric perspective unnecessary here. Perhaps insert "sometimes" if they don't always presage rain or storms. Or just delete this clause if the next sentence covers it well enough
Changed to active voice. I included "sometimes" since, as mentioned in the body, random cirrus clouds don't mean much from a weather prediction standpoint. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the prose and comprehensibility look OK, but I've always been focused on content so am not the right person to nitpick prose. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC, looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [2].

Shadow of the Colossus edit

Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Hog Farm's Talk:Shadow of the Colossus#WP:URFA/2020 source assessment, though I'd give some leniency to Kotaku. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some RS that could and probably should be cited, but aren't:[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] (just found them in a quick Google Scholar search) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna copy the list from talkpage here for convenience:

Content copied from Talk:Shadow of the Colossus

WP:URFA/2020

A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.

Dubious

TrustedReviews
Press Start Online
The Gaming Intelligence Agency
Insert Credit (no consensus)
Cane and Rinse
Zone of the Gamers
GameChew
Find Articles
ControllerFreaks
Kikizo (no consensus)
Thunderbolt (no consensus)
Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
HeyUGuys

Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced

Neoseeker
Nintendo Everything

Hog Farm _Bacon 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing of ones that may need replacing

So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list

Zone of the Gamers
GameChew

So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the article at present:

There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made Ico WP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.

Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be up for taking a shot at salvaging the article, however, a cursory glance reveals a large amount of necessary work that I believe calls for a collaboration. Methinks that some time to determine whether a second volunteer will come forward, a week perhaps, should be taken to bring matters to a head with this article. Some offline matters prevent me from attempting a straightforward one-man job, but in the meantime I'll try to patch up things here and there as time allows. Electroguv (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the work you have been doing on the article, very helpful. What particular things do you think you need help with? Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, thanks for coming forward so quickly! I'll make sure to get back to you in the near term with the suggestions. Electroguv (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Electroguv and David Fuchs: Are there still outstanding issues being worked on here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pending the response of the other pinged user, my current perspective is that there are still some general text issues across the article (wording, grammar, prose flow etc.) that need to be ironed out, and I think that the Development and Reception sections need an overhaul as regards their coverage and prose construction. As far as those issues go, I'd take the liberty of asking for about five days' worth of extra time to introduce the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just chiming in that I've seen this ping, but that my wiki-time is currently being focused on arbitration and I will circle back to check the article thoroughly once that's done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Having taken a lot more time than previously expected to add the revisions I've been planning to add to the article, I have to make an update on the situation for the sake of clarity. Substantial changes have been made to the development section; basically, it's been rewritten from scratch, fleshed out and expanded in terms of coverage and structure. The Connections to Ico and Remake subsections of the plot and development sections respectively have been rearranged due to their dubious academic value in the first case and tenuous connection with the overall article subject in the second case. As such, the material formerly present in Ico subsection has been removed altogether (as its associated topic is covered by the new development section), and the Remake segment as well as mentions of the game's PlayStation 3 remastered version have been incorporated into the Legacy section, where their placement seems to be well-judged. While I believe that quite a bit of work still needs to carried out to make the article comply with current FA standards (primarily as regards the reception section), I do think that I'll be able to push the matter through by the end of this week. Many thanks for your patience as always. Electroguv (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Electroguv? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Noticed this ping right away yet I'm replying just now because of real-life matters. They are also the reason that has been preventing me from adding changes at a swift pace as befits the urgency of this review. That said, my goal of completing the article revision is not frustrated despite the setbacks, and I intend to proceed promptly with my planned edits. If I might make so bold as to ask, I need a timeframe of 5-6 days to introduce the changes. I'd be truly grateful if granted the opportunity to make good on my promise and to see that this article keeps its status. I am much obliged to be able to count on your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  That's not an issue, this FAR will stay open as long as improvements are being made. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There have only been a few edits since 17 October and they are mostly minor. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Moving as discussion seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe what is outstanding here? There have been no edits since October 30, and Electroguv hasn't edited since Oct 22. If there is still work outstanding, is it time to move to Delist? We have at least half a dozen noms sitting at the bottom of the page, and I question how long we should leave them here if weeks are elapsing with no work progressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Hog Farm's initial concerns about sourcing that started off the review have been mostly fixed with the exception of Kotaku (pre-2010). The only obvious issue that sticks out for me is that it does not cite any of the academic sources I found and listed earlier in this FAR, which could potentially be a comprehensiveness/well-researched issue. But I really don't know enough about what's expected for video games to say. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Electroguv and David Fuchs: do you support keeping or delisting the article at this point? (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In replying to the collected queries concerning the current state of things with this article, I would first like to plead for a reconsideration of the motion to close. I should mention that my preceding inability to edit the article has to do with IRL issues related to sickness, so the setback that may have contributed to the present dilemma was certainly not intentional on my end, if that point has any relevance. Should you find this circumstance to have any merit, I would like to reaffirm my focus on ironing out the remaining issues with the article (including the ones highlighted above) and ask for the liberty to complete my planned article revision, with reference to the nominator's reply to my October 17, 2021 statement. I am fairly confident about being able to carry out the necessary changes by the end of the week (in particular, the Release subsection is still incomprehensive to my eyes), and so I once again request to be granted the opportunity to implement the edits within the allotted timeframe. I will try to incorporate information from the academic sources described above should I discover the citable parts to be immediately relevant to the subject matter, and will endeavor to make visible progress with the text in the short run. Of course, the final say rests with this article's reviewers, so I can only hope that I have been able to make an acceptable case for the reversal of the FARC motion and that a quality overhaul of this article is still within the realm of possibility. In any event, I will defer to your ultimate decision. Thank you for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Electroguv, I wish you a quick recovery from your illness. Definitely the article looks in much better shape than when we started. I think it was looking like editing had stalled, but if there are still plans to improve the article, I definitely agree that it should stay open. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also archived all the dead citations where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've finally managed to gather the necessary sources for retooling the Release and Reception sections. I'll be implementing the tidbits shortly. Electroguv (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no edits to the article since 22 December. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There has been at least one edit from Electroguv since then (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria Due to lack of knowledge about video garmes, I'm unable to identify any fatal flaws with this article, so it might as well be closed without delisting in order to move on. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 14:17, 22 March 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) 3:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [12].

Speed of light edit

Notified: TimothyRias, A. di M., DVdm, Headbomb, Vsmith, Physics Wikiproject, talk page notification diffs: November 2020 & January 2022 unarchived

While the articles has good bones, concerns with citations are have not been addressed since they were mentioned in 2020. The most modern 'modern reference' is from 2004, and it would be good if an expert could go over the text to see where more modern sources are needed. There are likely too many external links. I hope a FAR will bring more eyes to this important article. Femke (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of the {{citation needed}} tags seem to have been added without care, e.g., not considering what is a routine calculation or when a sentence merely summarizes the paragraphs that follow it. XOR'easter (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We're down to 3 {{citation needed}} tags, all of which look fairly easily fixable (either by finding/reusing references or by trimming the text). The intro might be somewhat overlong, and the "External links" probably need pruning, but overall, I don't think much work needs to be done. XOR'easter (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @XOR'easter: - my instinct on the ELs would be to remove the University of Colorado Department of Physics link as not including much information, the Usenet page, and De Mora Luminis as the latter appears to be part of a 1985 work and if it was copyrighted, would be a WP:ELNEVER situation. Hog Farm _Talk 19:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hog Farm, that sounds good to me. Done. Thanks! I've now addressed all the {{citation needed}} tags and caught the text/references up to date where I noticed they had gotten a little stale. I have not tried to shorten the intro. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of citation overkill:

A pulse with different group and phase velocities (which occurs if the phase velocity is not the same for all the frequencies of the pulse) smears out over time, a process known as dispersion. Certain materials have an exceptionally low (or even zero) group velocity for light waves, a phenomenon called slow light, which has been confirmed in various experiments.[76][77][78][79]
What cites the first sentence, versus the second sentence?

IF this has been "confirmed in various experiments" (four of them), why is there not one definitive more modern source that can be used, rather than four citations?

And if there isn't, is that original research?

And if not, can the citations be bundled?

Procellariidae edit

Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, Vital articles, WikiProject Birds, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-01-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are sentences and whole sections that do not have citations. I tagged some of these sections with cn tags in January, but these went unaddressed. There are also citations to books that do not contain page numbers. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the lack of citations isn't the major problem with this article - I could easily add some citations. The article includes a large section "Taxonomy and evolution" which is out of date. In addition, because of changes in the taxonomy since the article was written, the diving petrels aren't mentioned - or weren't - they were formerly placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae, but were found by genetic studies to be embedded in Procellariidae.

Although the identity and the relationship between the families in the order Procellariiformes is now firmly established, the branching topology of the genera in Procellariidae has been only partly known.

A preprint was uploaded to the BioRxiv server in July 2021 that contains what appears to be a robust molecular phylogenetic study of the procellariiforms (see here). I've placed a cladogram on the talk page that is based on this study. When the preprint is published in a refereed journal, I'll move the cladogram into the wiki article.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz I see you made some edits recently. Is this star salvageable, or should we Move to FARC? I am wondering if Jimfbleak has an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, I'm a fairly minor editor to this article, and I don't have the access to resources that Aa77zz has. He is one of the two major editors and currently working on it, so I'm content to leave it to his judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz: I see no edits since 4 January; how is this coming along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll work on the article over the next few days. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that work is ongoing. @Aa77zz: please ping me here when the article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: work continued on Jan. 30 and Feb. 8 Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Z1720: I've now completely revamped the Taxonomy section, included references for the uncited text and added missing page numbers. I've also made a few updates to the text. For the relationships between the genera within the family, I've incorporated the results reported in the preprint mentioned above. I've exchanged emails with the first author and learned that she hopes that the article will be published online in April. I'll update the reference when this happens. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz: Besides the reference that will be updated in April, is the article ready for editors to review, or are there additional updates/improvements that need to happen first? Z1720 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - please review. It is a "big" subject - with many sources. Unfortunately I don't own any of the books - and so had to go to the library today to check page numbers etc. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decipher why, considering there is a Carbonerasa and a Carbonerasb, there is also this:

8. Carboneras, C. (1992). del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J. (eds.). Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions. pp. 198–278. ISBN 84-87334-10-5.

Remove cite - there were 3 others for the same information. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are considerable duplicate links; you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to view them. Some reduction is needed, but what to keep and what to delink is a judgement call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the duplicated links. This is tricky - I'm surely not the only person who doesn't read a large article continuously from top to bottom (and wlinks are not intrusive) - Aa77zz (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 99 species of procellariid in 16 genera.[4] For a complete list, and notes on different taxonomies, see List of Procellariidae."

Wikipedia content is mirrored on other sites, where this kind of construct doesn't work. I suggest just putting a hatnote at the top of the section with a See also link to the List, and removing the text beginning with "For a complete ... "

Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now created a "See also" section for the list and moved the sentence "There are 99 species ...". - Aa77zz (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

Please comment below the bullet point if the point is resolved or if you have any questions about it. I am not an expert in writing articles on species, so please excuse my ignorance.

"They range in size from the giant petrels, which are almost as large as the albatrosses, to the diving petrels that are similar in size to the little auks or dovekies in the family Alcidae." As a lay person, I have no context on how large or small these other species are. Can the lede include measurements?

I've added wingspan measurements to the lede. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's some MOS:SANDWICH happening on my computer with "Giant petrel - Macronectes giganteus.jpg" and "Shearwater migrant flock.jpg" The former image might have to be removed.
Z1720 could you look again? I thought I had fixed all the sandwiches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's one line of SANDWICH, but I don't think it's a big deal so I'd consider this resolved (my screen is also extra wide so I think it's more prone to SANDWICH) Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT language needs to be added to all images per MOS:ALT

ALT text now added to all images. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" concentrations of 1 pair per square metre in three colonies of more than 1 million pairs," per MOS:NUMERAL unless there is a specific reason the number 1 is used instead, it should be the word one.

Done (by SandyGeorgia) - Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Most procellariid colonies are located on islands that have historically been free of mammals; for this reason some species cannot help but be colonial as they are limited to a few locations to breed." -> "Most procellariid colonies are located on islands that have historically been free of mammals and become colonial as they are limited to a few locations to breed." Would this suggested change modify the meaning of this sentence?
"found that of nine out of 61 male chicks that returned to breed at their natal colony actually bred in the burrow they were raised in." Delete "of" before the word "nine"?

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This tendency towards using the same site from year to year is matched by strong mate fidelity, with birds breeding with the same partner for many years; in fact it is suggested that the two are linked,[70] site fidelity being a means by which partnered birds could meet at the beginning of the breeding season." -> "This tendency towards using the same site from year to year is matched by strong mate fidelity, with birds breeding with the same partner for many years; it is suggested that the two are linked,[70] with site fidelity acting as a means in which partnered birds could meet at the beginning of the breeding season." Please check the modified phrasing to ensure it doesn't change the meaning. Also, the person/group that suggested that the two are linked should be stated in the article.

Reworded based on your suggestion. I've moved the cite to the end of the sentence. The cited article contains a discussion of the evidence for linking the two. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Some species breed seasonally, to avoid competition with other species for burrows," remove the first comma

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"breed seasonally for reasons unknown." -> "breed seasonally for unknown reasons"?

Done. - Aa77zz (talk)

"and even the stage of incubation." delete even

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"with fledging taking place at around 2 months after hatching for the smaller species and 4 months for the largest species." two months and four months, per MOS:NMERAL?

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Chicks put on weight quickly and some can outweigh their parents; although, they will slim down before they leave the nest." semi-colon should be replaced with a comma, and the comma after although should be removed

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Life expectancy of Procellariidae is between 15 and 20 years; although, the oldest recorded member was a northern fulmar that was over 50 years." Delete although

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"More recently procellariids have been hunted for food by Europeans," comma after recently

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"since the arrival of man," -> since the arrival of humans?

Done. - Aa77zz (talk)

"such as feral cats, rats, mongooses and even mice" delete even

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Conservationists are working with governments and fisheries in order to prevent further declines" Delete "in order"

Done. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the references, similar media types should be references similarily. If the article lists books in a separate sources area, then all the books used as sources should be listed there. Otherwise, the sources should all be listed in references and the sources area removed.

The Sources section only contains those books to which the article cites several different pages. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my concerns have been addressed, so this article is ready to keep, pending a review from an editor who frequents this topic area. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Morphology and flight section, the long caption on the second image contributes to the SANDWICH problem. The second sentence of that caption is not included in the article (or cited). The caption could be shortened by moving that sentence to the text, and citing it; that should also resolve the sandwich issue.

I've moved some text from the caption into the article and added a cite. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak might you have a look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'll take a look, but might be a few days before I can fit it in due to RL demands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pestering Jimfbleak again :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I've been holding off a bit because Aa77zz has been doing the heavy lifting on this. I've had another look recently, and made a couple of trivial edits, but there's nothing significant I can see, although I'm no expert on this family. Happy to Keep now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Z1720 is offline, but has already entered a keep above, on 14 February). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note with Z1720 away and in case it's not clear to the Coords, this has a keep from Z1720 (the nominator) above, and one from Jimfbleak, and one from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 12 March 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) 1:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [14].

Truthiness edit

Notified: User:ISD, User:Kizzle, User:Reaverdrop, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject Logic, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Telivision, talk page notification 2022-01-24

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, the truth is that this 2007 promoted article, in its current state, fails FA criteria: 1a, 1c, 1f (excessive blockquotes), 2b, and 2c. Sources like 'BookLocker.com', 'Firedoglake', 'YouTube'!, 'Salon', 'Today.com', etc. are not WP:RS, far from what we require for FAs: "highest quality reliable sources". The prose is not upto FA standard, combined with the fact that various citation inconsistencies and page structure issues exist. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the entire Use in political and social commentary is an absolute mess - it's just listing a bunch of unrelated, often minor, uses, with many parts just sourced to the usages themselves. (such as the Huffington/Colbert controversy to HuffPost and Colbert, the political and legal stuff to proceedings records/court briefs, etc). That whole section pretty much needs WP:TNT. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that section but the article still needs a lot of work, move to FARC (t · c) buidhe 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per HF and Buidhe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, sourcing still needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 18:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per nom. ––FormalDude talk 06:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist nowhere near FA quality (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Tagged for primary sources inline. See also section needs pruning. DrKay (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist much needed improvement not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - sourcing upgrade needed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The only engagement since it's nom at FAR has been from buidhe in February, and they have indicated above that it should be delisted, and I trust their judgement. Non-primary source needed tags need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 March 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) 1:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [15].

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls edit

Notified: Neelix, WP Organized crime, WP US, WP Sexology, WP Pedophilai, WP Media, WP Human rights, WP Film, WP Crime, WP Christianity, talk page notification 2020-06-27

Review section edit

Just like with the When God Writes Your Love Story FAR, this article has had a lot of concerns raised about sourcing its and POV. With these being raised in 2020 and barely any major changes have been done, its about time this needed a review. GamerPro64 20:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, zero engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, no edits so far this year. Hog Farm _Talk 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 00:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No effort to fix. GamerPro64 04:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 15:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no engagement to improve issues whatsoever. Hog Farm _Talk 13:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no article edits since it was nominated at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 March 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) 1:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [16].

Knights Templar edit

Notified: Elonka, Devokewater, Anupam, Berengaria, Ранко Николић, Afernand74, WP MILHIST, WP GLAM/Pritzker, WP Cyprus, WP Middle Ages, WP Christianity, WP Secret Societies, WP England, WP France, WP Organizations, noticed on January 21, 2022

Review section edit

I am very concerned with the sourcing quality in this 2007 promotion. First, the article uses the History Channel quite extensively. While this was likely acceptable in 2007, the History Channel is now considered unreliable due to a tendency to publish fringe views/conspiracy theories. Given that this is a subject that has a lot of fringe views and conspiracy theories attached to it, History Channel should not be used at all. Additionally, I have also listed several other sources as likely unusable for FA on the article's talk page, including low-quality print books, unreliable websites, and a few things that look outright WP:FRINGE (RILKO, possibly Mystic Realms). Sourcing needs attention from someone more familiar with this topic than I. Hog Farm _Talk 04:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up, I agree that the article is worth a re-review. As the editor who brought it to FA back in 2007, I'm taking a look now. It appears that most of the History Channel references, which I agree are unreliable, were added to sections alongside other reliable sources, so it's a simple fix for those: I've removed all of them except for one in the Popular Culture section, where it seems appropriate. Thank you also for noting other sources on the talkpage, I'm working my way through and will comment there as well. --El on ka 17:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~Comment: This is a controversial topic which (as Hog Farm observes) has a lot of fringe views and conspiracy theories attached to it. It is therefore incredibly important that we get this right. Since listing, the article has doubled in size - which is not a good sign. The reference section is all over the place. There is quite some reliance on the History Channel, self-published web sites and the like. There appears to be an adequate number of good quality reliable sources on the subject. It should therefore be quite possible to write an article without the need to resort to questionable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157 please see the instructions at WP:FAR; keep or delist are not declared in this phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so this is a comment that it doesn't meet the criteria at several points. I think it falls short of being comprehensive. It has a "rise" and a "fall" section but nothing in between. It doesn't tell you much about them either. They were all over Europe and not just in the Holy Land and only 10% were knights. It doesn't make it clear what the other 90% were doing all over Europe - and particularly, why they were doing it all over Europe. (OK a broad brush but you get the idea) The article states: With its clear mission and ample resources, the order grew rapidly. I'm not seeing where its mission is clearly stated. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for inviting for me to comment on this proposal User:Hog Farm. In my view, the article is well written and it possesses a lot of sources that would meet WP:RS. As User:Hog Farm has correctly noted, however, there are some sources, such as those sourced to a website hosted on MSN, that should be supplanted. If this is done, I would see no reason to remove the FA status. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICHing in the top portions of the article to be resolved.
The end of the article is a series of one-paragraph sections; better section organization and themes may be needed.
Copyedit needed: this is one sentence:
Beginning in the 1960s, there have been speculative popular publications surrounding the order's early occupation of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and speculation about what relics the Templars may have found there, such as the quest for the Holy Grail or the Ark of the Covenant,[115] or the historical accusation of idol worship (Baphomet) transformed into a context of "witchcraft".
There are HarvRef errors throughout the sources.
FAs are supposed to be comprehensive; lengthy See also needs to be rationalized (links worked into article where possible).
Further reading needs to be pruned.
Google Scholar hits only since 2018; has a survey of recent scholarship been completed, and is the article comprehensive?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit concerned about a few of the references, particularly - " Louis Charpentier, Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1966), translated The Mysteries of Chartres Cathedral (London: Research Into Lost Knowledge Organization, 1972)." If this is the publisher I think it is, this source could well be WP:FRINGE. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the issues I raised have been addressed, and there have been no edits since Feb 27. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, sadly, sourcing still needs improved and there haven't been significant edits so far this month. Hog Farm _Talk 16:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC issues still present (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no improvement (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no improvement - particularly coverage but other stuff mentioned above. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Some structural problems with the reader being told in three separate places in the article body that the Order of Christ is a successor order. DrKay (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As per the above. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - improvements in late February, but more is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Sources are disorganised and some listed sources are not used as inline citations. Short, one paragraph sections in "Legacy" need to be merged. No active improvements since Feb. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 26 March 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) 1:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC) [17].

William Tecumseh Sherman edit

Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.

Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances

While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.

I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.

I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.

I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good (unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm _Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sections, especially in the Historiography section. The last edit to this article was two weeks ago. Have improvements stalled? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should we just get rid of the Historiography section? It's one of the things that were added after the FA promotion and which may not have been up to the same standard. The article is already very long, and all of the detail about the various editions of Sherman's memoirs and correspondence may not be necessary. Moreover, the start of that section is not well referenced, not well integrated with the rest of the article, and perhaps too opinionated for Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The stuff at the beginning of the section about how he was viewed in the north and south postwar may be useful, but the publishing details and namesakes are poorly sourced and probably undue. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Eb.hoop2: - As I've seen no objection to removing the bulk of that material, I have just done so now, leaving only the first paragraph of that section. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that all of the specific issues that have been raised here have already been addressed in the edits. If there are other problems that need fixing someone should say what they are. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

@Eb.hoop2 and Hog Farm:, I am going to conduct a copyedit and review of the article. I will post questions and comments below if I feel like I can't fix them on my own. Let's see if we can get this out of FAR!

"Sherman embarked from New York" is this New York State or New York City?
- Done. It's now identified as New York City, although I think this was clear enough in the context. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Sherman, along with Ord, assisted in surveys for the sub-divisions of the town that would become Sacramento." This needs a citation or to be removed.
- Done. The passage has been improved and a citation given. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1874, with Sherman having become world-famous, their eldest child, Marie Ewing ("Minnie") Sherman, also had a politically prominent wedding, attended by President Ulysses S. Grant and commemorated by a generous gift from the Khedive of Egypt. (Eventually, one of Minnie's daughters married a grandson of Confederate general Lewis Addison Armistead.)[20] Another of the Sherman daughters, Eleanor, was married to Alexander Montgomery Thackara at General Sherman's home in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 1880." This seems like a lot of extra information about his kids. Should this be summarized? Why is it important in Sherman's article that Minnie had a prominent wedding, and that one of her daughters married a descendant of Armistead?
- I would support removing all or most of this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. The material has been removed. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and he relocated to New York on behalf of the same bank. When the bank failed during the financial Panic of 1857, he closed the New York branch." New York state or New York City?
- Done. It's now identified as New York City. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"He received a telegram summoning him to Washington on June 7." Who summoned him? Why?
- The sentence has been removed because I couldn't easily find a reference for the precise date and contents of the telegram. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs more information about the First Battle of Bull Run. The article alludes to a Union loss, possibly due to Sherman's decisions as a military officer, but this is not sufficiently explained.
- Agree. I consulted a book about Vicksburg I have that has a summary of Sherman's early career, and it refers to him as "exemplary" at Bull Run, which contradicts the Holden-Reid source a bit (Holden-Reid seems to refer to errors made by Sherman) Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - See discussion below. I've added some detail on the subject and I personally think that it's now adequate for the purposes of this article. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the Vicksburg section, it starts with a long blockquote. Can this just be summarized and used as prose?
- I vote to keep the quote. I find that it's a nice change of pace to have a long quote every one in a while, when it's relevant and the writing is good. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"generally regarded as a politically motivated distraction from the effort to take Vicksburg" regarded by whom?
- I have removed this statement, as I'm not convinced that it's necessarily accurate. Sherman thought it was worthwhile, and the Miller 2019 source, which is one of the best sources on Vicksburg published in the last few years, notes that the Union admiral in the theater at the time (David Dixon Porter) also approved, that Grant was convinced of its value, and that taking Arkansas Post removed a sizable Confederate post in their rear that could have caused problems later. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added back something on the subject. The one who thought that Arkansas Post was a politically motivated distraction was Grant, who got along very poorly with McClernand. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" According to military historian Brian Holden-Reid, Sherman finally "had cut his teeth as an army commander" with the Jackson Expedition." The jargon of "had cut his teeth" needs to be explained.
- It's actually an idiom, rather than jargon. I'm not entirely sure how to explain/rephrase this, so I've linked the phrase to Wiktionary. Hog Farm _Talk 18:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's indeed a common idiom. I don't think the Wiktionary link is necessary, but I'm happy to keep it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to Chattanooga. I'll continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2: - I recently picked up a book about Sherman's March to the Sea, which will hopefully be helpful for this. I probably can't solve the Bull Run one with the sources I have, though. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that Bull Run calls for more information in this article. Sherman was not a leading commander in that battle. He was at the head of one of the four brigades in one of the five divisions in one of the two units of the Union army in the field (see First Bull Run Union order of battle). The key points to convey are simply: a. that the Union suffered a disastrous defeat at Bull Run, b. that Sherman was one of the few Union officers to perform well under fire, and c. that the Union defeat left Sherman with considerable self-doubt and apprehension about the outlook of the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a non-expert in this topic or Sherman, I did not know what this battle was in connection to the Civil War. Furthermore, I did not understand Sherman's connection to this battle and was further confused when the article talked about Sherman's outlook of the war based on this battle. I think additional information on the battle and how it connects to Sherman's life is warranted to help give context to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I've gotten a couple of those above addressed, but I don't think I can do a whole lot more due to time constraints and sourcing access. Hog Farm _Talk 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2: I think you are in a better place to address concerns, because you know more about this topic than I do, and I am entering a busy time in my real life. When the above concerns are addressed, (except First Battle of Bull Run, as that might need a separate conversation) please ping and I will do another review. If others can't address the concerns, I will try to tackle them in a few weeks; please ping me if that's the case (FA co-ords please ping me before considering delisting if no one responds in a while, as I think this is closer to a keep then a delist). Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Z1720 and Hog Farm: I think that all of the concerns raised above have been adequately dealt with (see my point-by-point comments above). Also, I've now actually gone through the entire text and made the copyedits that I thought were called for. Personally, I'm happy with the current state of the article and would vote "keep". Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2: Thank you so much for doing this work. The article looks amazing, and you had a huge part in that. I have added some thoughts below:

"His father, Charles Robert Sherman, a successful lawyer who sat on the Ohio Supreme Court, died unexpectedly in 1829." Any idea on how he died?
- He died of typhoid. I've now added this info, with a ref. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the quote from Sherman about his time at West Point? I feel like it is repeating or contradicting information in the previous paragraph.
"promoted to the substantive rank of captain." What makes this rank "substantive"? Can we delete that word?
- No, this is necessary. The previous paragraph notes that he'd already been made a brevet (i.e., honorary) captain. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In early life: "Sherman would marry his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, at age 30 and have eight children with her." And in Marriage and Business Career, "On May 1 of that year he married his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, four years his junior." I think the early life sentence can be deleted.
- I personally don't see a problem with this slight duplication. The first sentence occurs in the context of a description of Sherman's foster family. The second appears chronologically, describing his actual marriage. People might well not read such a long article as this one all the way through, and the information is interesting in both of those distinct contexts. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"he returned to California to wrap up the bank's affairs there." Was this to "wrap up" the NYC branch affairs, or the whole bank? Also, I think wrap up can be replaced, maybe "to close the bank in San Franscisco" or "cease the operations of the bank."
- I've now edited this slightly. It now indicates that Sherman went to California to "finalize the bank's outstanding accounts there". I also added a ref. to Holden Reid's bio. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the first paragraph in "First commissions and Bull Run" section chronological? It gives a sentence about how his first command was of soldiers who fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, then explains Sherman's role in that battle. I think this paragraph needs to be rearranged.
- I don't see a need to re-arrange this. First comes a description of Sherman's assigned command, together with the statement that it fought at Bull Run. This is followed immediately by an account of what happened at Bull Run, and of Sherman's role in it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This was to set a precedent for future behavior by his armies. The capture of the city of Atlanta made General Sherman a household name." This needs a citation.
- I've now re-arranged and partly re-written this part. First comes the description of the fall of Atlanta, and then (in a separate paragraph) a discussion of its impact on the 1864 election. I added a ref. on the latter. I took out the sentence on "precedent", which was slightly vague, as well as unsourced. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Sherman and Hood played a cat-and-mouse game in northern Georgia and Alabama" I think cat-and-mouse needs to be replaced with a more literal explanation, per MOS:IDIOM
"Thereafter, his troops did little damage to the civilian infrastructure...He soon rendezvoused at Goldsboro, North Carolina with Union troops awaiting him there after the capture of Fort Fisher and Wilmington." This section needs a citation.
"Sherman proceeded with 60,000 of his troops to Washington, D.C.,...he thus had come full circle to the city where he started his war-time service as colonel of a non-existent infantry regiment." This also needs a citation.
"Those orders, which became the basis of the claim that the Union government had promised freed slaves "40 acres and a mule", were revoked later that year by President Andrew Johnson." Also needs a citation.
- Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Strategies section should go after the biography (ie, after his death section) and perhaps the Slavery and emancipation section can be moved to after his biography as well. These sections seem to be an analysis of his life/work, and not strictly biographical information.
"and in his interview for the film The Fog of War." Needs a citation
- It's in the movie itself (I've watched it a couple of times). I'm not sure that a further citation is really necessary. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"On July 25, 1866, Congress created the rank of General of the Army for Grant and then promoted Sherman to lieutenant general." Needs a citation.
"When U. S. Grant became president in 1869, Sherman was appointed Commanding General of the United States Army and promoted to the rank of full general. After the death of John A. Rawlins, Sherman also served for one month as interim Secretary of War." Needs a citation.
- Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1945, President Harry S. Truman would say: "Sherman was wrong. I'm telling you I find peace is hell."" Not sure that this belongs in this article, as it feels a little bit like trivia. Maybe remove?
- I've now removed it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"One of Sherman's significant contributions as head of the Army was the establishment of the Command School (now the Command and General Staff College) at Fort Leavenworth in 1881. Sherman stepped down as commanding general on November 1, 1883, and retired from the army on February 8, 1884." Citation needed.
- I have cobbled together citations for this entire paragraph. Hog Farm _Talk 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Such a categorical rejection of a candidacy is now referred to as a "Shermanesque statement"." Citation needed
"General Sherman's body was then transported to St. Louis, where another service was conducted on February 21, 1891 at a local Catholic church. His son, Thomas Ewing Sherman, a Jesuit priest, presided over his father's funeral mass. Sherman is buried in Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis." Citation needed
- I've cited the cemetery he was buried in; the rest still needs cited (I've dropped in a cn tag so it's clear that Warner doesn't cover it all) Hog Farm _Talk 18:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added some info. and a ref. on the funerals. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and the "General Sherman" Giant Sequoia tree, which is the most massive documented single-trunk tree in the world." Citation needed.
- Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the External Links section needs a major trim, maybe consult WP:ELNO
~~I was in the process of adding alt text for images per MOS:ALT but did not finish. Someone can finish this for me, or I will get to it later.~~
- Alt text has been added. I also removed some px sizes per MOS:IMGSIZE but kept it for others that I thought needed it (such as the maps or insignias). Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts after a second readthrough. I am seeing the end in sight! Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to check out a copy of Marszalek 1992 from the local library, so hopefully I can address more of this now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Marszalek was not helpful for the specific CN points and is back at the library. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm and Eb.hoop2: have all of my comments above been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - When Hog Farm is satisfied, please ping me for a read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some duplicate links can be justified, but there are quite a few here that are unnecessary; you can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to view duplicate links.
- I've taken a crack at reducing the number, keeping 5 or 6-ish where it was not obvious that the linked item was the same as previous. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are 13 instances of the word however, and it is unlikely they are all useful. Ditto for the 17 instances of also. From the top of User:SandyGeorgia: Subsequently, however, in order to, in total, and also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
Please see MOS:ACCIM; images within sections go after hatnotes (I have fixed this). I have also run scripts to correct faulty WP:DASHes and dates; anyone can install those scripts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picked up a paperback copy of Kennett (which is barely used) during a recent trip to Branson. I've got a couple other projects on the brain, but hopefully I can get some of these last straggling uncited statements cleared up with Kennett soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been able to start getting refs for the uncited parts. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF sourcing comments

There's still a bit of uncited text, mainly in the postwar career material. I'm trying to chip away at this, but it is slow going.
- @Eb.hoop2: - This is mainly just down to a couple sentences about the Indian Wars, which I don't have great sources for - any chance you'd be able to knock this out? Hog Farm _Talk 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure about the reliability of two of the web sources: Civil War Home and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I used the SCV in a GA once, but I don't think it's FA-quality.
- CWH is replaced, will try to get to the SCV sources soon. Hog Farm _Talk 07:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use of 19th-century sources needs a double-check to make sure that everything cited to the older sources is okay to do so
The Sherman tank ref is actually an uncited note (this one should be easy to source, I would think)
- This is done

A bit slow going, but this is still being worked on. Hog Farm _Talk 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone through the list of references used - not all are cited directly

Detzler is not used, moved to further reading
Isenberg not used, removed
Moved O'Connell to further reading, as it was not used

Also removed a source from further reading that is used as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this one - hoping I can focus on this for awhile. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, SandyGeorgia, and Eb.hoop2: - Gonna do a detailed review on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 03:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the original pass. I'm not going to have the sources/time/energy to really be able to address most of this myself. Hog Farm _Talk 06:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eb.hoop2, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I must sincerely apologize that, during my extended wikibreak, I completely forgot that this was my nomination, and failed to adequately follow the progress here. Hog Farm has posted a lengthy list at the talk page here, so I will follow up there. I am wondering, though, as HF has indicated not having the time, sources or energy to continue, if you all still feel this star can be saved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'm looking at this as a reviewer; others will have to assess whether they want to work to save it. When they are ready for me to review, they can ping me. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: productive work continues here on talk; I am concerned about overquoting and the difficulties with WP:V because of a haphazard citation style, and there are a few unresolved issues in the text. It will be easier to examine the text more closely once citation and verifiability issues are ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've decided to convert to sfns, which will add some time to the FAR, but leave us with cleaner citations and better verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC break edit

Delist - the process of converting to sfns and the accompanying scrutiny of sources has turned up a bevy of areas where the sourcing simply isn't up to par. Quite a few areas have been identified as failed verification, better sources needed, or similar. In particular, two whole sections are in quite poor condition. The slavery and emancipation section relies too heavily on Sherman's memoirs, and weaker sources that mainly just copy his statements. It also gives undue weight to a single event involving the 20 leaders, without indicating that those leaders who said those things were selected by Sherman. Additionally, the religious views section is in extremely poor condition, consisting almost entirely of quotes or purported quotes, when biographies of Sherman give secondary analysis to this topic and when there is an entire journal article specifically on this subject listed in the further reading and not used. Hog Farm _Talk 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your specific concern about the coverage of the Savannah meeting with Savannah ministers in the section on "Slavery and emancipation" is, in my view, misplaced. The relevant issues have been covered by many subsequent historians (I personally have read Marszalek, McPherson, and Holden-Reid), and the account as it's currently given in the article is not suspect, although it can be better sourced (as I'm currently trying to do). The Savannah meeting was actually an initiative of Secretary of War Stanton, who got along very poorly with Sherman and who was probably aiming to impugn his treatment of the freed slaves. Sherman invited the black leaders who attended, which is hardly the same thing as "selecting" them (much less "hand-picking" them). The meeting is important not so much for the positive words about Sherman than the black leaders expressed, but principally because it led to the (ultimately failed) project of black settlement reflected in Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15. Anyway, if one is familiar with the modern secondary literature on Sherman, one will see that there isn't really a substantive issue here.

Which brings me to my main worry. As someone who's read fairly extensively on the subject, I can assure you that the contents of the article are OK and consistent with current scholarship, though of course there's always room for improvement, and this review process has thus far caught some minor factual inaccuracies. The issue is that the standards of citation, which have become so much more stringent since this was promoted to FA in 2006, are rather difficult and laborious to implement here. In an article which (properly) tries to present a readable narrative, information is condensed and organized in a way that doesn't necessarily just collate the secondary sources directly and sequentally, and this makes the sort of point-by-point referencing now required particularly difficult. Nor does it seem reasonable to me to expect editors to read all of the modern biographies of Sherman and give them comparable weight in the referencing. That's just never going to happen.

If this is delisted now, I don't expect there will be enough momentum in the foreseeable future for this to be addressed. I think the process should continue, although it may take some more time. A very considerable amount of work has already gone into this. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not an FA as it stands. FAs have been built before during the course of a FAR, but that requires a monumental, blitzkreig effort, which has not happened here. The article has been at FAR for the better part of the year, and only recently was the faulty sourcing delved in to. Bringing this article to FA level would require a much broader and sustained commitment to rewriting the article.

Here’s a list of, at minimum, what needs to be done (and my concern is that, the deeper we look, the more we find):

There are at least four new scholarly sources that have not been used (now listed in Further reading: Carr, Detzler, O’Connell and Woodworth).
Reliance on Sherman’s Memoirs needs to be reduced, considering there is a large body of scholarly sources that could be/should be used. In many cases, even the secondary sources used are only repeating Sherman’s own claims, and all of that needs to be teased out and weighed versus other independent sources.
~~As of now, none of the Memoirs citations meet WP:V because we don’t know from what version came the page numbers, and all need to be checked.~~ In any case, many of those citations to self should be replaced anyway.
Citations to Memoirs sorted, over-reliance on them remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~In every section checked, there are now failed verification, primary source, citation needed, page needed, etc. tags throughout, which all need to be addressed.~~And there is more that is not yet tagged (when I am reading from my iPad in the car, I often notice things that I can’t edit in until I get back to a real computer).
In addition to that, there is a long list here on FAR talk of questions and issues to be resolved.
So many of the older sources have multiple versions that I am not confident that we are identifying page numbers correctly. (Current example, but there are others: the two Cox sources list no publisher … from which version of his publications come the citations?)
And if all of that sourcing is cleaned up, only then can real examination of the more serious issues be attempted. Does the article meet due weight, is there no cherry picking, etc. It is a big problem that, in every instance of attempting to correct the citation formatting to indicate what source cites what text, deeper issues are found in terms of comprehensiveness and neutrality.
Two current examples of this problem are the Slavery and emancipation section, and Sherman’s religion. In the first case, we have only included text that all directly points back to Sherman himself, even though we have on FAR talk a list of independent sources that present a different view. In his religion, we have an entire paper on the topic that is not used. A third example is that somewhere in my “time in the car” reading, I came across one source that delved extensively into Sherman’s relationship with his wife— an area I don’t believe we have covered. All of this contributes to the flavor of the article, which is that we are re-telling Sherman’s story as he told in it, in his Memoirs, rather than giving due weight to independent sources.

It may be possible to locate an experienced FA writer at WT:MILHIST to take this on, [18] but I believe we are well beyond the point of what should be undertaken at FAR, and that a rewrite with a new submission to FAC will be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that are several things going on here that need to be disentangled. This article certainly was lacking in the dense, point-by-point referencing that became the norm for Featured Articles after its original promotion in 2006. This is a complicated task, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. It exceeds my own technical skills and available time, and the intervention of more experienced and active editors is certainly needed. But I think that another aspect of the problem is that much of that technical work so far has been done by editors who're not familiar with the literature on the subject. This is certainly not an aspersion on you, Hog Farm, or anyone else, and I certainly appreciate your effort and contributions. But I think it's clear that one can easily get confused or sidetracked when performing such as task without a sense of what the literature on the subject looks like and what the gist is of the current scholarly take on Sherman's life. Therefore the assistance of experienced editors with more knowledge of the subject is sorely needed.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your view that the contents of this article need a significant overhaul. A great deal of work went into writing this article more than fifteen years ago, so that it would provide a fair and readable narrative (as I mentioned above, literal translations of the English text soon became featured articles in several other languages). Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one of the editors involved that effort who's still around. When I first saw this FAR, I purchased a copy of Holden-Reid's 2020 biography and read it, which reassured me that the current scholarly consensus is consistent with the narrative that this article provided (see, e.g., this review, unfortunately paywalled). There's a huge secondary literature on Sherman, who was always an intensely controversial figure for several obvious reasons, but there's also a modern scholarly consensus that's broadly favorable to Sherman's honesty and leadership. I don't see the wisdom in starting now to revisit the controversies from Sherman's old detractors without a clear understanding of where the scholarship on Sherman stands today. That way lies chaos.

Another issue are the many quotes from Sherman's letters and Memoirs used in the article. I suspect that the main reason for this is simply that Sherman is often very quotable, and that his Memoirs are readable and available. I think that this is only really a problem when Sherman's own words are used as the sole reference for a potentially controversial claim or judgment, but I don't see many instances of that in the current text. In any case, fixing that is certainly part of the ongoing labor of improving the references.

Finally, I think that at the current stage some of the tagging of deficiencies in the referencing is excessively literal. For example, I've been trying for a while to find a secondary source to support the statement at the end of the lead that Sherman's Memoirs "became one of the best-known first-hand accounts of the Civil War". But is that really necessary? The body of the article mentions and documents Sherman's publication of his memoirs, the public controversies that the aroused, the response by President Grant, the comment and praise that they drew much later from the critic Edmund Wilson, their inclusion in the Library of America collection, etc. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the citation needed for "one of the best-known" is needed, because it's making a superlative claim. For instance, it's not clear how it'd stack up against, say, Grant's memoirs, or E. Porter Alexander's, or Co. Aytch, all of which I see referenced more often than Sherman's in my readings of sources related to this time period. The article is making a superlative claim, so this needs a citation. Hog Farm _Talk 14:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Woodward book review says:

Sherman’s writing was a less heroic business and obviously more enjoyable, done in a period of three years when he was full of beans. He enjoyed the company of women as well as dancing and theater, amateur painting, and quoting Shakespeare. With the Memoirs he did not take the pains he might have in checking facts and called it in his preface to the first edition “merely his recollection of events, corrected by a reference to his own memoranda.” Shortly before publication he wrote his brother, Senator John Sherman, “I have carefully eliminated everything calculated to raise controversy.” Calculated or not, controversy was certainly raised. In a second edition in 1886 (the one used here) he undertook to correct factual errors (some fifty, the editor finds) but not to reconcile his own memory of events with that of others. “I am publishing my own memoirs, not theirs,” he declared somewhat testily.

Another indication that we shouldn't be overquoting from his Memoirs (and we should take care with which version used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a MILHIST-type, and can only contribute cleanup (of which there is/was an overwhelming amount needed). Hog Farm, on the other hand, is a Civil War editor. I understand the unfortunate circumstances that brought this article to where it is, but the concern is that I don't see us getting where we need to be from where we are now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do understand that Sherman is very quotable, but we should be basing which parts of his Memoirs we are using on the secondary sources, rather than directly quoting Sherman based on our own determination; we have an abundance of secondary sources that could be used. This is shown very clearly in the two sections I’ve given as examples, where Wikipedia is telling Sherman’s story in Sherman’s words, rather than using other secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is too close paraphrasing. In the ten days since these delists were entered, the amount of text quoted to Sherman has not been reduced, and the four untapped sources have not been introduced. The article still contains blatant breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF, like Sherman’s own statements about his academic record, and in spite of the Woodward book review above, indicating the extent of Sherman’s bias in his Memoirs. The article has been edited, but has not improved on the important matters; Wikipedia’s account of Sherman is still mostly as told by Sherman. Another example of this problem, as yet unaddressed, is how we treat his “breakdown” (an unaddressed colloquialism). We have six sources on FAR talk that discuss severe depression and anxiety (I don’t know what the newer untapped sources add), and yet we never use those sources. Instead, we rely again, excessively, on Sherman’s own accounts and letters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you're conflating two distinct issues. The first is the extent of the quotations from Sherman's own memoirs and letters. I personally don't see this as a problem, as I've explained elsewhere. Bear in mind that most of those quotes were there when this article was promoted to FA in 2006 (and when literal translations were promoted to FA in several other languages) and I'm not aware of standards having since changed to make this a problem. Still, if there's a consensus to remove those quotes, it shouldn't be difficult to implement.

The much more serious issue that you raise is whether this article is an account of Sherman "mostly as told by Sherman". I beg to differ with that assessment. There's an enormous secondary literature on Sherman. A great deal of it is in fact used, and in every case that I'm aware of, the line taken in this article is consistent with the modern scholarly consensus. I don't see any important instances in which Sherman's own account or assessment is accepted uncritically, much less allowed to stand in contradiction to the evaluation of modern and reliable secondary sources. I trust that this question as it concerns the section on "Slavery and emancipation", which was the main concern when you and Hog Farm asked for delisting ten days ago, has now been adequately addressed by adding references to important secondary sources that make it clear that we're not simply taking Sherman at his word.

As I've already argued in the appropriate section, I see no way to resolve the issue of Sherman's "breakdown" without engaging in OR or NPOV, because there's no consensus about what a modern medical diagnosis of Sherman's conditions might be. In this issue, in fact, what we have to go on is almost wholly the content the letters by Sherman and his family. The current treatment of the subject seems to me satisfactory and consistent with Wikipedia policies.

The outstanding problem, as I see it, is still the detailed referencing. I'm only now beginning to work on clarifying the page-number references to Sherman's memoirs, distinguishing between the public-domain editions in two volumes and the authoritative and modern Library of America edition in one volume. This may take me several days. I note again that more active intervention by editors with direct expertise on Sherman and the US Civil War would be very welcome. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eb.hoop2, I also think that the religion section needs work. I believe Sandy was able to find a link to the Detzler article about Sherman and religion and I think it's linked somewhere on the talk page of the FAR. Surely there is some useful content in that article. And if you're wondering, I'm the primary author of 13 FAs about the US Civil War, although I'm more familiar with the Trans-Mississippi West than the events further east (Grant's Canal is the only one with a Sherman connection). Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I agree with Hog Farm, and don’t think we can get there from here; the work of trying to sort the sourcing by converting the haphazard citation style to sfns forced closer examination of just what the sources actually were, and has revealed serious shortcomings. A top-to-bottom rewrite to newer sources (which are currently unused) would be needed, there is an extreme over-reliance on Sherman’s own Memoirs, there is too much text that fails verification, there is cherry-picking, very important sources are left out, there is extensive quoting of Sherman himself, and there remains a lack of clarity about many of the sources used; all is documented on the talk page of this FAR. The problems are too serious to be reworked in the course of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Sandy. There's been a lot of improvement—for which I can thank all participants in the FAR—but it's just not at FA status at the moment, imo (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For now. Extensive changes are actively being made. Buffs (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eb.hoop2 and Z1720:: for their opinions. I would assume at least Eb.hoop2 is a clear keep. Buffs (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me to endorse a keep, the article would, in my opinion, be able to pass an FAC with today's standards. Hog Farm has brought up sourcing concerns, which are very time-consuming to repair (it took me a year to gather sources for my historical biography FA, and I would imagine that an article about this prominent of a person might require the same amount of sources.) While saddened to see an article delisted, I would rather have an article delisted and brought back to FAC than remain open here for multiple additional months. Saving articles at FAR is supposed to be a quick process, (a few weeks to a maximum two or three months) and I'm afraid that this article, despite the best work of Eb.hoop2, is going to take much more time. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just gonna give a heads up here that I'll be on break for probably over a week, ping me if there are major developments; I'm seeing great work going on here. Hog Farm _Talk 06:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm now that you're back, I could not decipher if all/any/none of your unstruck items on the talk page have been addressed; could you update? I struck those concerns I had that have been addressed (which is not all of them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - I've got a few remaining that are still unaddressed. There's still a half-sentence of uncited text in the Carolinas section about the order of secession, the Thanks of Congress still isn't mentioned in the body, and "Sherman's views on Indian matters were often strongly expressed" is still sourced to one of Sherman's letters. My concerns about certain quotes that may be excessive don't seem to have been responded to or rebutted. I will say though, that the majority of my concerns have been addressed and that I am now fairly comfortable with the religion section (it looks like Detzler and Gannon were quite helpful). Hopefully I can give this a re-read over the weekend, but this is trending in the right direction. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through again (after your break :), and still have several concerns; will transfer and summarize to this page, from talk, as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I've been arguing throughout this review, the contents of this article are sound, and what was really required was to improve the referencing to bring it up to the current, exacting standards. This has taken a very long time because I seem to be the only one sufficiently familiar with the contents of the secondary literature on Sherman to engage with that task in earnest, something that I couldn't imagine would be the case when the review started. I'm not a particularly active editor and I've never previously done this kind of work. I thank Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia for their technical contributions, without which I wouldn't even have really known where to start.

Hopefully now all of the major issues raised in the review have been resolved. All the tags have been resolved, while several new and modern secondary sources have been incorporated. In fact, I think that it should be possible to close this review fairly soon. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Hog Farm has indicated on talk those items he raised that have not been addressed. I stopped following the day-to-day editing, but can summarize the issues that I raised on talk that haven't yet been addressed:

~~I asked what makes http://www.sfmuseum.org/ a reliable source; that query is unanswered.~~ It is a commercial source that gives none of the usual indications of reliability, and appears to be a website operated by one person; as such, to be reliable, it would need to meet WP:SPS.
The Museum of the City of San Francisco (formerly the "Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco") was established by the city's archivist, Gladys Hansen, in 1991 and is currently run by her son Richard Hansen. Both of them are published authors. I leave it to others to decide whether this is enough to make it a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. In any case, this article uses it as a source only twice: first for the date of Sherman's arrival in Monterey and its chronological relation with the change in the name of San Francisco, then for Sherman's participation in Col. Mason's inspection of the gold mines near Sutter's Fort. On the second point, the same information is also sourced to O'Connell's biography. That use of the MCSF could therefore be easily removed, but it's much easier for a reader to consult the MCSF website than O'Connell's book. In the other case, one could either reference the date of disembarking and the date of the change of city name separately, or remove the second bit of information (although I personally think that it provides an interesting chronological perspective). In any case, this hardly seems to me like a major issue that should hold up or scupper this review. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that. WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." In this case, it's marginal as both the website, and Gladys Hansen#Selected publications seem to establish her as an expert on the San Francisco earthquake, while we are using her to cite content related to the California Gold Rush. I will strike this concern only because part of the content is duplicated by O'Connell. Please understand for general purposes and as a timesaver, though, it is up to the person wanting to use a questionable source to establish why they believe the source meets SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked why we aren't using more recent sources. ~~Carr, a 2015 book, is still listed in Further reading, as is Woodworth (2010). Was Carr consulted? If not useful, why not? And if not useful, why then is it worthy of listing in Further reading?~~ This is our most recent scholarship--some understanding of why it isn't used should be provided.
Carr's book is not a biography. It's an interpretive essay on the legacy of Sherman's campaign in the subsequent development of US warfare, somewhat along the lines of the earlier work by Walters and Reston that the article comments upon. Woodworth's is a short biography published as part of a series on "Great Generals" for a broad audience, and therefore not a detailed scholarly bio comparable to the books by Marszalek, O'Connell, or Holden-Reid. I don't see why it's a problem to list them under "Further reading" without using them as references. As I've already said here more than once, there's an enormous secondary literature on Sherman, and I don't think it's realistic or reasonable to expect a Wikipedia entry to deal with all of it directly. What's important is that the facts in the article be verifiable and that the interpretation reflect the gist of the modern scholarly consensus, supported by the corresponding references. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those explanations.
I have struck my oppose to the exclusion of Woodworth, and agree both should be listed in Further reading.
Carr is a separate matter, that could have been resolved earlier. On FAR talk, at 05:26, 26 December 2021, I mistakenly listed this WSJ review (see ProQuest 1797588016) as being of Carr, when in fact, the review is of McDonough and O'Connell (both of which are used extensively). That is the material I am concerned about including. Are you able to access the WSJ article? Because now the question becomes a different one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New concern (per mixed up review of Carr v McDonough/O'Connell). Why is the material from McDonough and O'Connell highlighted in the WSJ review (ProQuest 1797588016)) not reflected in the article? For example: We are presenting Liddell Hart's comment on "first modern general" at face value, with views from supporting scholars, when other scholars have different views according to the WSJ review. It also mentions Sherman in relation to slaves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of Shermans' "nervous breakdown" is unresolved. While the meaningless term has been removed from the article, the underlying issue remains, and is an example of what plagues much of the article. While we have multiple reliable sources that discuss Sherman's depression, we never use the word. What we do instead is to rely on Sherman's own Memoirs, with a euphemism from a personal letter: While he was at home, his wife Ellen wrote to his brother, Senator John Sherman, seeking advice. She complained of "that melancholy insanity to which your family is subject".
I've said already that I don't think this can be further resolved, because it's totally unresolved in the secondary literature. Trying to say more about the subject seriously risks trouble with the OR and NPOV policies. Some modern authors suggest that Sherman was bipolar, some that he was depressive, some that he suffered from anxiety or panic attacks. O'Connell argues that he had no abnormal psychiatric condition at all, and that his breakdown in Kentucky was the result of exhaustion. No more information about this likely ever to be available, since all we have to go on regarding Sherman's mental state are his own letters (and a few comments by family members, like the phrase from his wife's letter to his brother that you quote above). I feel strongly that the article's treatment of the subject is fine as it is. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have sources, and we certainly can say what they say without OR or NPOV, and without getting into marginal sources like wired.com claiming bipolar (which I have never suggested we use). I will repeat here, then, what has already been stated and asked on FAR talk (copying comments from myself and Hog Farm).
1. This NYT book review of McDonough claims depression; what does McDonough say ?

2. Kennett p. 145 says Dr. Paul Steiner, whose study of Sherman has been cited earlier, went over the relative documentary evidence and prepared a "Neuropsychiatric Record" offering this conclusion: "Today the diagnosis would be that of a mild "anxiety attack". and then goes on to discuss a similar and poorly document incident that had occurred in California in 1856.

3. And this source says Holden-Reid mentions severe depression.

4. Miller p. 65 calls it "incapacitating depression" and pp.68-69 says when Sherman was in St. Louis, that Halleck had an army doctor perform an evaluation of his mental health and that Sherman was ruled "unfit for command", and that he was later cleared for field service again in February.

5. This WSJ book review of Holden-Reid mentions depression and anxiety, so presumably Holden-Reid does as well.

These questions were raised on FAR talk on 26 December and have not been addressed. You said on 26 December "secondary sources don't agree on a diagnosis (bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety attacks, something else), nor do I see how they possibly could". I'm not asking about a post-humous diagnosis. I am stating that we have no mention anywhere in the article that various scholars have described possibilities ranging from anxiety attacks to severe depression, to counter and explain the useless euphemism now in the article. Leaving this out is POV. It appears that most credible sources--indeed, the sources you use for other content-- delve in to this. I do not have McDougal, or I would simply add this content myself so we can wrap up this (much too) lengthy FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have an entire journal article, the issue of religion and how that affected Sherman's marriage is not covered. Again, relying on his own letters, we recount his disappointment in his son becoming a priest, having jumped over the importance of the religious differences between Sherman and his wife, which is well covered by Detzler. By jumping over this issue, we not only leave out what appears to be a significant matter in his personal life, but we fail to adequately explain why it was such an issue with his son. One or two sentences could address this.
Even though I didn't feel that much more discussion of Sherman's religion was called for, in response to what you and Hog Farm requested, I read the article by Detzler and then edited the article to incorporate it. I also found and used another article by Gannon (even though I personally think it's clear that Sherman was an agnostic rather than, as Gannon argues, a deist). I don't quite understand what it is that you think we're currently "jumping over". If it helps, I note here that I think it's clear that Sherman was so upset when his son Tom decided to become a priest not because of religion per se, but rather because it meant that Tom would neither take over the administration of the family's financial and practical affairs nor continue the bloodline, as Gen. Sherman had wanted and expected him to do.

The current level of detail about Sherman's relations with his immediate family seems adequate to me. I'm open to improving this, but I really don't think this is something that should hold up this review. I might note here, as I've already done elsewhere in this review, that Sherman is only notable for his role as a military commander in the US Civil War, and not for his religious views or family life. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no content in the article describing his relationship with his wife and children with respect to religious differences, as covered in an entire journal article. Regardless of what makes Sherman notable, this is his bio, and should reflect his life. If we are using the logic that he's notable as a commander of the US Civil War, we wouldn't have a problem with the Virtual Museum of San Francisco, as we wouldn't be including that content at ll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of the issues with respect to Slavery and emancipation with the sources listed here have been addressed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to those comments and then edited to section of the article on "Slavery and emancipation" to improve the references and clarify the issues that you'd raised. I don't see any contradiction between the sources that you listed and what the article currently says. If you have concrete objections to the current text, or questions about it, I'd be happy to consider them. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources provided on talk; issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I missed it because my better source needed tag was removed, but "One of the most serious accusations against Sherman was that he allowed his troops to burn the city of Columbia. In 1867, Oliver Otis Howard, commander of Sherman's 15th Corps, reportedly said, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act."" is still sourced to an obscure 19th century autobiography and the writings of a Confederate general sometimes accused of being part of the reason Columbia was burned. Given that the burning of Columbia is still controversial to this day, both of these sources are wholly inadequate. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who removed the "better source" tag because I thought that the problem was with the lack of details on those two sources. I thought that this was solved by providing an archive.org link to the full text of the first one, and details on the authors and publisher of the second one (which as far as I could tell isn't available online). I agree that the sources aren't such as would inspire great confidence in the reliability of the statement quoted. But they certainly do contain the statement, which has been used down the line by those who've argued that "Sherman burned Columbia". I obviously agree with you that the sources cited would be insufficient if the article were presenting the statement attributed to Howard as true. But the article is actually doing almost the opposite, since this accusation is followed by a summary of the current scholarly consensus that Sherman didn't deliberately burn Columbia. I wouldn't object strongly if others want the statement attributed to Howard removed from this article. But I think it's useful in providing a sense of the debate on the issue that raged for years after the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have not been much substantial edits since mid-January, is it time to put this FAR out of its misery? (t · c) buidhe 00:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have had no response from Eb.hoop2 yet on the unresolved issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that someone else would step in first, but it seems that hasn't been the case. Let me say here that I'm not quite happy with how this FAR has progressed in recent months. It's clear that, as the article stood when the FAR was opened, the referencing needed badly to be brought up to the current standards. I believe that this has now been fixed, with a very considerable investment of time and effort. Other aspects of the article have also been improved, and significant historical scholarship published after this article was first promoted to FA in 2006 (such as that in the bios by O'Connell and Holden-Reid) has now been incorporated. But I also feel that the users most active in this FAR have recently adopted an attitude of asking others (effectively, me) to rewrite the article for them. Although standard may have changed, I think it's still relevant that, when this was promoted to FA in 2006, it was with the support of a number of different editors who claimed expertise in the subject of General Sherman and who were therefore actively involved in determining the contents of this article.

As I've already said in this review, I'm personally opposed to cutting back substantially on the quotes from Sherman's letters and memoirs (most of which have been there since before the original promotion to FA), and especially to cutting back on the discussion of the Civil War in order to give more space to Sherman's private life. Of course, if there's a consensus among other editors to do that, then that's what should be done. But, since I've seen no such consensus being expressed, and since there has been so little input in this review from editors claiming substantial expertise on Sherman, I feel strongly that it'd be a mistake to demote this article from FA because those things haven't been done. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re "But I also feel that the users most active in this FAR have recently adopted an attitude of asking others (effectively, me) to rewrite the article for them."

You have two reviewers who have consistently engaged towards saving this bronze star for almost a year, and spent a great deal of time doing so. The time spent has been somewhat misspent because questions have not been answered and concerns have not been addressed. This FAR is approaching the record that the British Empire hit (a year) before the British Empire was delisted because concerns weren't addressed. If you would take the concerns more seriously, perhaps the star can be saved.

You also seem to be under a faulty impression re "I think it's still relevant that, when this was promoted to FA in 2006, it was with the support of a number of different editors who claimed expertise in the subject of General Sherman and who were therefore actively involved in determining the contents of this article".

For the time period in which this article passed FAC (when FAC was much busier than it is now), this is a very cursory look and a promote on minimal support. The supporters were not experts in the subject of Sherman, and if you glance through other articles promoted in the same month, you may get a better sense of just how minimal the support for this FA was. I worked closely with most of the reviewers who supported; they were neither Civil War editors nor even MilHist editors, and to continue suggesting that Hog Farm is not is becoming derogatory and disrespectful of the work expended on this article. If you are uninterested in responding to concerns raised on this FAR, we should just proceed to delist, in the interest of not wasting more reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my comments came across as derogatory of disrespectful, which was certainly not my intention. But both you and Hog Farm have explicitly disclaimed sufficient expertise on the subject of this article to engage directly in major editing of it (Hog Farm said at the start that he's more of a "Trans-Mississippi Theater guy"). I sincerely appreciate your input and the work that you and Hog Farm have put into this review, and especially into improving the referencing. What I'm not so happy about is that, in recent months, I've come to feel that if I want to save this article's FA status then I have to edit it myself in ways that I disagree with and without any visible consensus (or even much of an input) from other editors.

I have fond memories of the work that led up this being promoted to FA in 2006. I recall a collaborative back-and-forth with Kross, John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Hartfelt, and a few others (none of them, unfortunately, active on Wikipedia any more). I was proud of the final result and was encouraged to see that literal translations were used in several other languages and even became FA's in French, Danish, and Hungarian. When this review came up, I was sufficiently interested in saving the FA status that I bought and read Holden-Reid's 500-page biography, and have more recently delved into O'Connell's biography and other sources that are now incorporated into this article. This has been a lot of work and I believe that I've now fixed what I can fix and explained it clearly here when I disagreed with an issue raised. I think it'd be a shame if the article were delisted, but I don't think that I can go much further in making changes that I don't think would improve the article.

I also think that it's unfortunate that there's been so little involvement from other users, especially since last December. To give just one small concrete suggestion, Hog Farm has asked that information about the two 'Thanks of Congress' that Sherman received during the war be incorporated into the main text. I considered this and finally decided that I didn't like how it would interrupt the flow of the narrative (especially in the transition between Chattanooga and Atlanta), but he should feel free to make those edits himself if he thinks that they'd improve the article. I don't own this text, evidently, and I can hardly be expected to be the one to change it in ways that I don't personally agree with. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 08:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your feelings.

Do you have McDoughal? I have asked for over a month what McDougal says on depression. Similar for several others: I can access reviews of the sources, but don't have the sources myself. We are talking literally about one sentence, which I am happy to add myself, but I do not have the sources so it would be irresponsible of me to do so.

We are also talking about one sentence on family and religion; I can add it myself if I must, since I can access that source, but I suspect you will be happier if you add it yourself, as you have more of the full body of work. If you don't have these major sources we are using, then we have a bigger issue.

On slavery and emancipation, we have a larger problem. I would not like to see the article delisted after so much effort expended to bring it to current standards, but you have the sources, I don't, so it falls to you to either make the necessary edits, or supply quotes from the sources so others can make the edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Thank you for the improvements but the article is tagged as lacking reliable sources and I think there is an over-emphasis on Liddell Hart, particularly in the lead. DrKay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [19].

History of Minnesota edit

Notified: Elkman, Mcb133aco, Rjensen, WP Minnesota, WP US, WP US History, talk page notification 2020-12-06

Review section edit

This is a 2007 FA that has fallen out of standard, mostly due to lack of updates. The list of issues on talk is a year old, and includes sourcing issues, MOS matters, datedness, lack of comprehensiveness, and some boosterism. The article has good bones, so it would be a pity for it to be delisted, and hopefully someone will address the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at 11,000 words of prose size (around 50% more than the version that passed FAC), there is a real need for some pruning and trimming of content to make better use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the FAR was opened, @Elkman: has added significant information to the 21st century section. Are you interested in improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in improving this article, though I'm unsure why nobody else is available to help out. I put in a large share of the work to get this to FA status back in 2007, but I'm far less active on Wikipedia these days than I was 15 years ago. That said, history doesn't stand still. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be fewer and fewer people to help everywhere :( Elkman, I am concerned that the new text you added needs to be much more tightly summarized. If you are able to chunk in missing text for comprehensiveness and replace the over-reliance on one book in politics, I will be better able to help on some of the other little stuff. But right now, we're too far away for me to know where to start to help. The article was under 8,000 words of prose when it passed FAC, and is now over 11,000; several areas are excessively detailed. If you can get it below 9, while adding missing areas (eg immigration), I can take a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enormous portions of this article are uncited; there is too much to tag. Some of the uncited boosterism should never have passed FAC even in 2007; I am unsure this article can be salvaged. It also needs serious trimming everywhere. Page numbers are missing on books. A section on Lynchings and executions was plopped into the middle of the article. Everywhere I look, there are considerable problems. It would take a considerable effort from multiple editors to rewrite this to FA standards. The mainstay of Minnesota's economy is farming, and yet the lead claimed banking and computers since 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed what bloat I can, but ~~the article is still 10,000 words, and is not comprehensive. There is still excess boosterism.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting for duty, sorry to be late. I'm willing to help but will need a couple days to understand the problem. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree some wording (that you call excess boosterism) added since 2007 is over the top, nevertheless it could be true that Minnesota was the center of the universe in computer hardware (as opposed to software) for a while. Didn't Seymour Cray build the world's first supercomputer with business headquarters in Minnesota? I have less time for this review starting Monday but will have access to two books that might back this up.

SandyGeorgia, thank you for questioning MNopedia. I have no problems with their scholarship but failed to get them to cite their work back in 2013. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am becoming concerned about the amount of text deleted; is there a plan to rebuild some from newer and better sources?~~ I haven't followed closely, but the edit summary "Civil War omitted" caught my attention.

There are several books on Minnesota History; are they being consulted in terms of establishing due weight? I see MNopedia (not a source that should be used at the FA level) is now used seven times, and I don't think this article can be considered FA-level without consulting these newer sources (since the last FA)--an FA on history cannot be built by consulting internet sources:

Wingerd, Mary Lethert. North Country: The Making of Minnesota (University of Minnesota Press, 2010).
Hatle, Elizabeth Dorsey. The Ku Klux Klan in Minnesota (The History Press, 2013).
Radzilowski, John. Minnesota (Interlink Books, 2006), story of ethnic groups (for the missing parts on immigration, which is not covered at all in the article)

I also question a stand-alone section on "Lynchings and executions". I believe both are WP:UNDUE here. If executions are DUE here, they might be part of a Legal section, and I believe the lynchings more appropriately belong at Duluth. If they do belong here, perhaps a section on race, but the current "Lynchings and executions" section looks like somebody wanted to park some UNDUE information somewhere, without consideration for article structure (which now needs re-thinking).

Also, there is MOS:SANDWICHing in the Technology section; I suggest that both of those images should be removed (Honeywell is no longer in MN and the thermostat image is purely decorative, while the CDC 6600 hardly seems worth mention.

~~The article is improving, but I'm not sure it's moving yet in the direction of featured quality. Without consulting books, it won't make it.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk)

And I just noticed Somalis in Minnesota. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somalis and immigration updated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A more minor concern, but I'm surprised that the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment isn't mentioned at all in the Civil War section, given that it's service at Gettysburg is basically legendary. The Dakota War should get most of the focus on the section, as it was more important to Minnesota specifically, but it should be mentioned that units fought in the actions against the Confederates further east, and the 1st MN Infantry mentioned by name. Hog Farm _Talk 14:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work continues.

Hog Farm have a look at the content re 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment in the Civil War section? History of Minnesota#Civil War era and Dakota War of 1862
Addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Civil rights section is moving in the right direction, with a mention of George Floyd, which is organizationally better than having an entire section for Floyd. Perhaps Floyd could have a paragraph in Civil Rights, with the section below eliminated entirely, and then another place found for the I-35 bridge collapse (separate infrastructure section)?
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The top-level organization will eventually need to be re-worked, as the way it now goes from older history, to Economic and social development (which includes 21st century), then back to World War I and World War II, and then to 20th and 21st century ... doesn't work. Everything after the Dakota War needs rationalization to a new Level 1 organization.
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way the Ku Klux Klan is worked in to the new Immigration section, as its activity in MN was mostly aimed at Catholics rather than blacks. ~~Does that need to be mentioned, if a source supports it?~~

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the last comment is done (sentence expanded per the source). I hope somebody else can tackle re-organization. Elkman is this something you could do? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the civil war stuff, removing a bit of boosterism, correcting a couple minor factual errors, improving links, and reordering stuff. I'd like to see the quote in the Wingerd source about the 12 regiments, as based on List of Minnesota Civil War units, I'm not quite sure what units the 12 is referring to. Hog Farm _Talk 20:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Hog Farm. Thank you for cleaning up that paragraph. I couldn't find a working link in a free source online for you. Here's the quote from Wingerd p. 354: "By war's end Minnesota had raised in excess of twelve regiments, sending more than 24,000 men into battle, the equivalent of one-seventh of the state's 1860 population." Does that look all right? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SusanLesch: - Personally, I prefer the more detailed listing here. Maybe something like "By the end of the war, Minnesota had raised 11 regiments of infantry, two sharpshooter units, and some cavalry and artillery" And then give the 24,000+ figure and the losses from Wingerd? Hog Farm _Talk 00:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hog Farm. If you want to tighten the focus, why don't you make that section look as you'd like it? Take another paragraph if need be. (To clarify my note from yesterday: there's no free online source for Wingerd.) Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have Wingerd, but did what I could. Why does MNHS say 11 regiments, while Wingerd says 12? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Wingerd is counting a non-infantry regiment as the 12th one - possibly the 1st Minnesota Heavy Artillery Regiment. (the two cavalry regiments appear to have mainly been involved in the Dakota War) The 11 v 12 may not be an apples to apples comparison. Hog Farm _Talk 02:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured and worked back in to the appropriate place the older info on Lynchings and hangings. SusanLesch are you planning further writing? When you are close to finished, I will start examining sources and prose. Please let me know. After that, the lead will need to be re-worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, ~~Further reading needs to be trimmed. SusanLesch would you mind if I convert the book sources to sfns while I'm copyediting?~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Yes, I am almost done writing except in the new Civil rights section, now revised. MN was first state to give black men the vote but is the site of George Floyd's murder, a paradox of liberalism and prejudice. William Green's book is my source for that thread that runs through history. (The history of Floyd and Chauvin isn't written yet but I daresay a related photo could be in the lead here instead of the fort.) I didn't realize how neat those sfn templates are, thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC) One question. Should this article do "black" and "white" or "Black" and "White," lower case or capitalized? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch I need an answer before changing WP:CITEVAR; may I switch to sfns? The ref tags are much harder to work with. Also, I can't tell what "relied on computing technology born in the state and four Nobel laureates in economics from the University of Minnesota" means; could you rephrase or provide a quote from the source? What did the four Nobel laureates contribute? I am not up on upper vs. lower case for race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Yes go with sfns. There's no free preview for Misa p.201. I'll copy out the paragraph in a minute. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch Thanks. To convert to sfns, I will need to put the article in use for several hours; may I do that now ? You will have to avoid editing so we don't get edit conflicts. Please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia it's all yours. Thank you very much. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's hoping there's enough here to formulate a sentence. From Misa pp. 200–201. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Even today the U.S. federal government continues to be a significant player in the market for military-oriented systems integration. Many of the promotional activities, and a great deal of the market stimulus for computing can be traced to specific local instances of state activity, as this section outlines, including the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota, and then (in the following sections) several innovative networks of computer users organized into the Minnesota Educational Computing Consortium, as well as the varied efforts, over two decades, to bring a statewide Internet network to Minnesota. These demand-side actors were no less important than the computer manufacturers themselves in making Minnesota a digital state. [skip a lot]

The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis also developed unusually close relations with the University of Minnesota's data-driven economics department. Among many other prominent faculty, Walter Heller was a key economic adviser during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and he subsequently build the department into one of national prominence. Economics, of course, was one of the earliest of the social sciences to enthusiastically adopt mathematics, statistics, data processing, and computing. Heller connected economics professors at the university with researchers at the Minneapolis Fed in the 1970s. He hired up-and-coming stars from the best universities around the country, enticing them with the promise of direct interaction with the data-rich Minneapolis Fed. By far the most important result of the university-Fed collaboration was its significant contributions to the currently dominant "rational expectations" school of data-driven macroeconomics. Among this notable group were Neil Wallace, Thomas J. Sargent, Christopher A. Sims, and Edward C. Prescott. Prescott, who won a Nobel Prize for related work in 2004 (as did Sargent and Sims in 2011), taught at the university for nearly a quarter-century, and today continues work at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Heller also hired Leonid Hurwicz, yet another economics Nobel laureate, who taught at the university for fifty-five years. His Nobel-cited specialty was in "mechanism design," or the devising of effective practical mechanisms to deal with imperfect markets. Ordinarily, one doesn't expect to find applications of Nobel Prizes directly in daily life, but Hurwicz, a lifelong politically active member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, invented the "walking subcaucus" used by Minnesotans to nominate candidates. It is difficult to imagine this churn of economics--including four Nobel laureates--occurring in Minnesota if the upper Midwest Federal Reserve had been located anywhere else...."

I will look at that soon. I finished most of the sfn converts, and established a consistent style: italics on hard print sources, sentence case for all but book titles, and repeat last two digits on page ranges. I did not finish cleaning up the web sources in the top sections of the article; back hurts, will resume later.

I did flag a number of missing pages, failed verifications, and non-reliable sources that will need to be addressed before I start to look at prose. Tired for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minus all four Nobel laureates. Found a second reliable source, but lines can't be clearly drawn. Apologies. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see that's done; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust anything cited to TimePieces; it should all be reviewed and re-sourced to either the underlying literature given by the MNHS, or preferably, to newer sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing here is rather a mess; there has been a very lax approach to source-to-text integrity. The appearance is that, at some point, people just wrote whatever they wanted to write and later stuck a source on it that sorta/kinda/maybe matched. Unless someone plans to undertake a line-by-line check and repair of all of the old sourcing, we should let this FA go. I have cleaned up a great deal, but do not intend to do the amount of work needed to salvage this star. Everything I check in the older parts fails verification and turns into a can of worms. SusanLesch as you are the only editor working towards saving this star, it may be up to you to decide if you are willing to take on the task of checking line-by-line and re-sourcing/re-writing as much as needed. The sourcing is not to a place such that it is worthwhile to begin copyediting, and there are still considerable copyedit needs. After a full day of working on this article, replacing and rewriting what I could, and having checked a miniscule amount of the sources, there are nonetheless 2 non-reliable sources remaining, 9 failed verification tags (so far), 13 page needed tags, and 6 citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Agreed, it is time to let this star go. Sorry we didn't decide that before your marathon yesterday. I learned something (that sfns make links). The missing sources are in areas I've never looked into so am not able to help. I suggest we notify WP:MINN before closing this out. Thank you for your help and hard work! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All WikiProjects were already notified, but I will add another note there. Thanks so much for all your work. At least the article is considerably improved for our efforts, even if it loses the star. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, too much work for two of us to complete alone, and we don't have older sources, and there are source-to-text integrity issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per the source-text integrity issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. Missing sources and editing help. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no work to resolve failed verification issues (t · c) buidhe 15:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist sourcing work needed beyond the scope of FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - FAR is not a great place for line-by-line rewrites, which is what would be needed here at least in sections. Hog Farm _Talk 00:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Limited (thank you SandyGeorgia) to no editors contributed to save this. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as a palpable sign of my lack of involvement over the years, and perhaps a reflection of my behavioral problems and questionable competence on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Even though I was heavily involved in getting this article to FA status back in the day, I've paid less attention to this article in the past... decade or so? I saw one particular gem that slipped in: "The Chicago and Aurora Railroad reached Mendota/Fort Snelling in 1853." No, it didn't. That was Mendota, Illinois. I should have been paying attention. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 14:20, 22 March 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) 3:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [20].

General aviation in the United Kingdom edit

Notified: User talk:Factotem, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United Kingdom, 2021-11

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because much of it has not been updated since 2006/2007 and there are gaps in comprehensiveness, for example the coverage of greenhouse gas emissions. There were no replies to my talk page notification last november. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC only one minor edit since nomination, issues still present (t · c) buidhe 05:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC; dated content such as "The average cost per hour to fly such aircraft has been estimated to be £133, compared to an estimated £77 per hour for gliders, and a reported £35 per hour for microlights" being from sources from 2004 and 2005. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no/minimal improvement, issues still present (t · c) buidhe 00:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - minimal engagement, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, needed improvements not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 19 March 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) 3:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [21].

StarCraft (video game) edit

Notified: Phils, S@bre, Al83tito, Ferret, Judgesurreal777, Ost316, Spy-cicle, JimmyBlackwing, WP Video games, WP Science Fiction, noticed in December 2020

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion contains a number of sources that would no longer be accepted at FAC. From a quick glance, CreepColony, sclegacy.com, Operation CWAL, soundtrack collector, game genie, and mobygames should all almost certainly be replaced, and there are several others that I think are likely dubious but I'm not familiar with. The sequel of StarCraft II likely also warrants somewhat more discussion, and there are lesser issues such as weird italicization of "factions", and items that need checked for updating or have an as of date added, such as "The balance stays complete via infrequent patches (game updates) provided by Blizzard". Hog Farm _Talk 04:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd add that StarCraft is one of the best-covered games ever released, and that simply isn't reflected in the article. The small size of the Development section, and the lack of an in-depth Sales section (despite an overwhelming amount of global sales information), is proof enough. This was adequate for 2006, but it's not comprehensive enough for today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC; only edits have been to add details to the plot information. Hog Farm _Talk 17:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, not comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no/minimal improvement (t · c) buidhe 00:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - nothing occurring to address sourcing issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist needed improvements not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 19 March 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) 3:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [22].

Black Francis edit

Notified: CloudNine, WikiProject Biography diff, WikiProject Alternative music diff, WikiProject Guitarists diff, WikiProject Oregon diff, WikiProject United States diff, talk page notification 2021-08-07

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review per the notes at Talk:Black Francis#WP:URFA/2020, the article has not been reviewed since 2007 and as such has seen better days. Lots of unsourced content and questionable sources; in its current state, it clearly no longer deserves the star. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - sourcing issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 08:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, considerable sourcing problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist sourcing issues still present (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – the article uses many problematic sources, and there have been no significant edits in months. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - significant sourcing problems have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 19 March 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) 3:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [23].

Georgetown University edit

Notified: Ergo Sum, Patrickneil, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education, talk page notification 2021-06-30

Review section edit

This is a very important FA: It's for a level-5 vital article, it's one of only 4 remaining FAs for an extant higher/further education institution (12 others having been delisted since September 2020), it's the only one of those for a major U.S. research institution, and it's used as one of the two U.S. showcase articles for WikiProject Higher education to model the project's best practices.

HAL333 raised issues with this FA last June, and there was interest from several editors in addressing them, but now several months later, that work has not happened, and a follow-up by me in November went unanswered. We cannot postpone indefinitely, so I am opening this FAR. Going through HAL's concerns, sandwiching is immediately obvious in the Post-Civil War expansion section. I found insufficiently sourced content (e.g. Healy's education in France) when I examined that same paragraph. The students count is one example of dated content, being from 2017 (or 2013 in the infobox undergraduates field footnote). The notable speakers paragraph, which contains qualitative statements (e.g. Many prominent alumni are known to frequent the main campus) sourced to a university page, is an example of overreliance on primary sourcing (that reference is also one of many where the university's name is inappropriately italicized).

Overall, these issues point to a need for a top-to-bottom review and update. I'll make further comments below as I examine the article further, and I hope many others will join in to get this back in sparkling shape. Resources that may be helpful include WP:UNIGUIDE and the example of Pomona College, a U.S. college FA that was promoted this past December. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb edit

Okay, so going beyond the comments above, here are some other things I'm noticing (some bigger than others):

Lead edit

On a hill above the Potomac River, the school's main campus is identifiable by its flagship Healy Hall I'd rephrase to The school's main campus, on a hill above the Potomac River, is identifiable by its flagship Healy Hall so that readers begin the sentence knowing what we're talking about. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Georgetown is home to the country's largest student-run business, largest student-run credit union, oldest continuously running student theatre troupe and one of the oldest debating societies in the United States. "The country's" and "in the United States" creates redundancy. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little wary of how much room athletics take up in the lead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For footnotes a and b, there shouldn't be external links, as these are subject to link rot etc. Just use normal references. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At Pomona, I made the call to use just {{Start date}} rather than {{Start date and age}}, as the age didn't seem so important as to be worth going onto a second line. What are your thoughts on this? It might be something worthwhile to bring up at WT:HED again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the {{Infobox university}} documentation, we've decided that only orgs that provide essential definition of the institution qualify for the academic affiliations field. None of the entries here would be appropriate in the lead body, so I don't think they're due for the infobox either, and I'd suggest removing this entirely and instead putting it in the body. NAICU is particularly unwarranted, but also AJCU and ACCU are largely redundant to the religious affiliations line. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of citations in the lead, which raises WP:CITELEAD concerns. I'll need to read the body to know which things are cited because they're not in the body (which could raise WP:DUE issues), but if they are in the body and aren't controversial qualitative information, they should be removed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the provost an important enough position to warrant mentioning in the infobox? I looked to see if the body says anything about it, and it doesn't, but that might be reflecting a separate issue of no organization and administration section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the academic staff, is it due to provide the full-time vs. part-time breakdown in the infobox? We could shorten it to just one line if we saved it for the body. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative staff is not precisely defined, so per the updated {{Infobox university}} documentation, please update it to |total_staff= instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For location, Washington, District of Columbia has two links to the same place. I'd just use Washington, D.C., as that's the most recognizable form anyways. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The campus parameter needs to be split, per updated guidance at {{Infobox university}}. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Large City some sort of formal designation? I question the capitalization. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A free label is used for the newspaper (unlinked, oddly). Per this discussion, I don't think this is appropriate unless the newspaper has official status with the university, which I don't believe The Hoya does. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sporting affiliations, I question MAISA and EARC the same as above. Could those more minor affiliations be moved to a footnote or kept for the body? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox is missing the annual budget. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause there for now to let these things be addressed before continuing. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb, thanks for the notes. I'll look into these tomorrow. Generally though, I'm concerned I don't have the time to keep this article at FA quality on my own, I keep hoping new students/alumni will see this and want to contribute.-- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 23:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very understandable; it's always easiest with a team. @Ergo Sum, do you plan to participate here? I know you're still in the middle of the Georgetown presidents featured topic, but this might be very well worth the detour, since as the pageview data makes clear, the main university article is extremely important for readers and serves as a gateway to the others. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Yes, I'm going to participate as much as I can. I'll give this all a look as soon as I can. Ergo Sum 00:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This level of detail could go on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the coordinators to move my comments to talk if they start becoming long enough they clutter the FAR page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easier on them (and all) is if you remove them to talk yourself as/if they are resolved. Adding the (premature) level 4 subheading resolved the problems this section break is causing in the FAR TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear this article is receiving sustained attention; shall we Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - a little lead work on February 13, but there hasn't been any sustained work here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency, structure and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sadly, there just hasn't been any sustained work over the last three weeks. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I checked 2 refs in the alumni section and both had failed verification issues. (t · c) buidhe 15:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, sourcing and datedness, and last significant edits were my minor adjustments on 27 February. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 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) 3:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [24].

Oil shale edit

Notified: Beagel, Novickas, WP Energy, WP Geology Noticed in November 2021

Review section edit

As noted on the talk page several months ago by Femkemilene, this article has not been properly kept up to date. The economic statistics in the industry section are highly out of date, the industry history material stops at 2005, and the environmental considerations stop at 2008. Without updates, especially with the economics and environmental material, this does not meet the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Beagel has made some improvements here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, there have been improvements, but the issues raised by Femke persist; the article is dated. Moving to FARC does not preclude further work towards restoring status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, which does not preclude additional improvements. Editing has tapered off the last several weeks, and a few sections still need significant updating. Hog Farm _Talk 19:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist currency issues have not been fixed (t · c) buidhe 00:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - it's been about a month since the last major editing, and there are still needed updates in several sections. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, needed improvements not happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 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) 3:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [25].

William Henry Harrison edit

Notified: Charles Edward, Hoppyh, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Virginia, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject United States Presidents, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 2021-09-23

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Hello, I gave a notice on the 23 September 2021, but nothing much has changed since then. I think the article is quite good except for a few unsourced pieces of text. I think it would be good to see if it still meets the FA criteria. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sahaib3005, just to clarify, are the issues you posted on the talk page the entirety of your concerns with this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria, no there is quite a few bits of unsourced text in the article. For example in the death and funeral section "On March 26, 1841, Harrison became ill with cold-like symptoms. His doctor, Thomas Miller, prescribed rest; Harrison was unable to rest during the day for the crowds in the White House, and that night chose instead to host a party with his army friends.", there is no source.Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be no problem here. The citation (currently #121) is at the end of the next sentence. Let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for improving the article. I don’t see any more problems with the article (though other editors might). Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a quick skim I think this article is salvageable. There's some uncited sentences and paragraphs that need to be resolved. I also think some short paragraphs can be merged, particularly in the "Legacy" section. If someone is willing to address these, I am happy to conduct a more thorough review and copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the specific items of initial concern listed on the talk p.; I'll be glad to address other items as I'm able. Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be attempting a copyedit including the unsourced material issues. Hoppyh (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoppyh: Please post here when the copyedit is complete, and other editors will review your work. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My copyedit continues and I will advise when complete—probably another day or two. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: My copyedit is substantially completed; glad to help further as needed. I’m continuing to look for improvements that can be made. Hoppyh (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this version, unformatted citations, bare URLs, and sources flagged as unreliable by Headbomb’s script. Citation cleanup work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'm glad to work on these, though it's not my forte. Perhaps an example or two of corrections needed would instruct me. I'd appreciate the help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure … I will add them to Hog Farm’s list below, to keep in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A source-text integrity check should probably be conducted if possible, to make sure that the issues found at Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe are not present in this similar article, which also uses similar sources and has some similarities in the edit history. From a quick check of reference reliability:

" "Harrison dies of pneumonia"." - history.com is considered to be generally unreliable (due to publishing fringe junk unrelated to this subject)
Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Milligan, Fred (2003). Ohio's Founding Fathers. iUniverse, Inc. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-595-29322-3." - this is self-published
Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Coincidence or Something More?". About.com. Retrieved June 9, 2008." - is about.com reliable enough for FA? I'd recommend replacing the ref
Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" "Statue of William Henry Harrison - Cincinnati, Ohio - American Guide Series on Waymarking.com". www.waymarking.com. Retrieved July 28, 2016." - Probably a better source than waymarking should be used for FA purposes
Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time for a deeper look into sourcing right now, but I also see instances of the same ref formatted differently and used separately, such as the Thirty-One days historynet.com source. Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating what Hog Farm said, a thorough source-to-text integrity check should be conducted here, for more reasons than those mentioned by HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of unformatted citation (also red-flagged by HeadBomb’s script as not reliable)

"Harrison dies of pneumonia".

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of bare URL in citation:

https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/william-henry-harrison-history accessed August 24, 2021

Fixed I think. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HarvRef error:

Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005.

Removed. On further reading list. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This, for example, is a book, but is lacking full citation info (eg, Publisher and ISBN)

Peck, J. M. (June 4, 1851). The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. Retrieved March 28, 2010.

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides those mentioned by Hog Farm, also flagged by HeadBomb’s script is the about.com source mentioned by HogFarm; about.com is WP:SPS, and is reliable if reliability can be established for the specific author of the about.com article.

These are samples only; all citations need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am initiating a citation cleanup from the beginning. Hoppyh (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a review and edit of the article's citations, as well as the bibliography and further reading. Hoppyh (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnhart Riker is not listed in the Bibliography, and is causing HarvRef errors throughout: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barnhart & Riker 1971, pp. 409–10. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnhartRiker1971 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peckham is listed in External links, but should be Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Borneman, listed in Bibliography, is not used, and is returning a Harv Ref error (see Category:Harv and Sfn template errors, you can install this script to detect errors):
Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Further Reading. Hoppyh (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hoppyh; all of the citation formatting issues I raised are addressed. I have not looked at anything else on this article, and it’s unlikely that I will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it looks as though all the concerns raised thus far have been addressed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give this some source-text integrity checks. It looks like I can get Owens from the local library, will try to get it tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 21:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conducting sourcing checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Henry Harrison/archive1, some problems noted. Hog Farm _Talk 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll be glad to look at them and try to solve. Hoppyh (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commending the excellent use of the talk page by our considered and responsive Hog Farm, as this is just the sort of review that does not need to be conducted on the main FAR page, but can be summarized back to here once it is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worked all the way through the cites to Owens. Anyone have ready access to any of the other sources? Because there were a number of issues revealed in spot-checking. Hog Farm _Talk 22:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I ever had was Cleaves. Unfortunate there is not more interest here, but I live in a glass house in that respect. Hoppyh (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of them are linked to archive.org; have you checked all of those, Hoppyh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that link and I’m glad you mentioned it–very useful I imagine, especially for older folks like myself. But to answer your question, I have to a great extent limited my work here to what’s already in the article, at least until HF started the source checking. I’m growing a bit unsure how much more I should do here, without the benefit of more editors. Hoppyh (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the dilemma; perhaps someone will check source check all of those archive links, considering that Hog Farm is finding concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Could you instruct me using an example? Hoppyh (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoppyh: Sure, I will put that on the talk page here (with my apologies for not being able to help out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will initiate a source-to-text review for the Gugin citations. I will attempt to fix and use the edit summary to note location. Hoppyh (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To update, Gugin review complete, also Burr, now have Carnes in process. See archive link above provided by Hog Farm. Hoppyh (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoppyh: - Are you done with the Owens items? I'll return it back to the library soon, if so. Hog Farm _Talk 17:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hoppyh (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold in FAR, slow but steady progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm indicated he may get access to additional sources over Thanksgiving and if so I will be glad to respond to whatever that reveals. Other than that, the only additional source checking I can think of is to perhaps check those citations with on line links. Let me know if there is other work needed here. Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the Taylor source is really from 1899, it should be public domain and accessible through Google books or something. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it–I’ll do the check. Hoppyh (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To update, I’ve had some success accessing additional sources; results are posted on the talk page here, and we’ll keep at it as time (and turkey) allow. On a side note, it happens that Harrison has a connection to Thanksgiving, as his birthplace at Berkeley Plantation claims to be a site of one of the first Thanksgivings in the country. Check it out.Hoppyh (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As further update on our audit of sources, I think I have done all I can. It appears there are six sources remaining unaudited, for which I have no access: Barnhart/Riker, Bolivar, Cleaves, Collins, Funk, and Greiff; 19 citations are linked to these. I will be glad to help further if other issues arise. Hoppyh (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to get Barnhart/Riker and a different edition of Cleaves from a library, possibly tomorrow (no guarantees, though). Collins I can probably get from a nearby library, but it's a bit of a drive that I often don't have time for. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try where possible to replace the sources for the above citations in lieu of finding the refs we don't have access to. Hoppyh (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cites to Funk and Barnhart/Riker have been replaced–I have moved those sources from Bibliography to Further Reading section. Hoppyh (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't able to get to the libraries so far this week, hopefully can get there soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only sources which remain unchecked are Bolivar, Cleaves, Collins, and Greiff, making up nine citations. Hoppyh (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm not concerned about the citations to Greiff, based on the subject matter they are supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have exhausted my avenues of access/replacement as to the remaining 9 citations. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to check Cleaves and Collins, although I had to use a different edition of Cleaves that appears to be much longer (stuff cited as being in the 150s appeared to roughly correlate to the 340s). Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that some issues were flagged up checking those two. With Greiff not being a significant concern due to it just supporting the existence of statues, that just leaves the infrequently-used Bolivar. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all the issues flagged have been sufficiently addressed. Hoppyh (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that "Leaving it in for now." in response to a problem passage sourced to Collins is fully addressing the problem. Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text and cite replaced. I’d like to confirm wife’s return from Ohio to his deathbed but need to research that. Hoppyh (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. She never made it.Hoppyh (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed a substantial edit, adding sourced detail in the Death and Funeral section, as appropriate for this aspect of the article. Hoppyh (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: It’s been a couple weeks since we did anything here and the original review nominator has long since indicated his departure from this. I guess someone will weigh in about where this goes at some point. I’m glad to return here if needed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hoppyh; I’m not sure what might happen next here. Perhaps a Move to FARC is needed to get some !votes on where this article stands. It’s not clear to me if the source-to-text integrity issues are resolved, and I haven’t really engaged this FAR for that reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm about to enter a week-long wikibreak, so I won't be able to engage much here right now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your break; perhaps we can hold here for a week or two more then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, between Hog Farm and myself, the article has undergone a fairly exhaustive source-to-text audit; I believe our notes bear that out. Hoppyh (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Hoppyh: - I've checked the web sources for three sections, and flagged up a bunch of failed verification or other problematic things. Most of the failed verification is tagged in the article, but more details are at the talk page of this FAR with the other spot-checks. I also found some instances where a RS web source cited includes negative information about Harrison that is not reflected in the article, I suspect that a few sections may be glossing over things (such as his performance as diplomat). I'm also concerned to the citations to Burr 1840 - this is a source written during the time Harrison was running for president on a log cabin platform, so "and he was hailed by many as a national hero" clearly needs a better source, and I'm suspicious of the entire paragraph talking about Harrison's simple farm life and decision not to run a still - we shouldn't be using a possibly-partisan source from when he was running on the log cabin platform to source such material. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm: I’ll be glad to work on these. Hoppyh (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm: Burr is not my source here, but I come to his defense. Reference in Burr the preface and also pp. 290-291, where the author forthrightly addresses the potential allegation of timing and partisanship; he firmly denies bias and refers to the sources in his appendix. While not necessarily dispositive of the RS question, such an effort to dispel concern was rare at that time and level of sophistication, and the source is therefore worthy of some degree of reliability. Hoppyh (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The author verifies the information about the still with an address Harrison made to the Hamilton County Agricultural Society-see appendix. The appendix also includes reference to Harrison’s farm labors and poor circumstances, as well as his being responded to by colleagues and the public as a hero. (I don't personally find that surprising, inasmuch as he did seek and obtain the presidency.) I also have conducted a search on the internet of the author and I can find no entries which draw into question his objectivity in his book on Harrison. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I will endeavor to revise/omit text as needed to synchronize with the source. Certainly, if you identify negative info worthy of inclusion, let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be going over the RS web site mentioned above–this is the Freehling work–which may have additional negative information for other sections of the article, and I will make textual revisions as appropriate, and note them on our archive. Hoppyh (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident I have gleaned all the material Freehling has to offer, both positive and negative. Hoppyh (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this juncture, having made numerous additions and other revisions based on Freehling, I will again copyedit the article for typos, etc.. Hoppyh (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work is still ongoing on talk. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria - not much has changed. I last checked items on January 27 and left four comments (two bigger source-text integrity, one minor source-text, and one source reliability concern) and have received replies for one. Based on what I've looked at so far on the print sources and web sources, every single individual reference needs checked if possible, which is quite tedious and something I only want to do right now if there's going to be active fixes to the findings. And just now looking through at a couple web cites, I'm seeing that one spot that had already been fixed is still problematic because "He ran in the 1822 election for the United States House of Representatives, but lost to James W. Gazlay" is sourced to a source that says Harrison lost in 182 and a source that Gazlay won in 1822, neither article mentions both at the same time and there were multiple Ohio House of Reps elections in 1822 so this isn't properly sourced. So Move to FARC I guess. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, which will hopefully prompt broader engagement to the issues raised by Hog Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues outstanding include verifiability and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist some improvement but the source-text issue prevents it from meeting the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist has improved, but the verifiability and source-text issues really need a complete rewrite outside of the FAR process. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; sad to see after so much work improvement, but this one didn't make it; much more work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 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) 3:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) [26].

Norte Chico civilization edit

Notified: Marskell, Eio-cos, Parkwells, 83d40m, WikiProject Peru, WikiProject Archaeology, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted on the talk page, the article has not been updated and expanded with recent research; it is lacking in well-researched and comprehensiveness. Other issues include citing press release and wordpress blog which are not high quality RS. An entire section of the article is devoted to an academic controversy that has almost nothing to do with the civilization; that content should be moved to Norte Chico civilization discovery controversy. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also 12 cn tags that need fixing. The lead is cited and doesn't always match the body, for example: "It is from 3100 BC onward that large-scale human settlement and communal construction become clearly apparent" is not in the body. (t · c) buidhe 12:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

83d40m replied to this FAR on their user talk page. (t · c) buidhe 02:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC) They expressed concern that the article should be renamed, which upon consideration is considered under the featured article criteria since it's part of the MOS. (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no substantial edits or engagement on the major content issues outlined above (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were some helpful edits on 3 March by Eio-cos, but the citation issues still remain with 11 citation needed tags. (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretted Delist per Hog Farm below. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - some improvements have occurred, but the article is not continuing to move in a direction that would result in FA status being kept. Hog Farm _Talk 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Hog Farm: the issues noted above (cn tags; problematic sources; lead issues) still remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [27].

Arsenal F.C. edit

Notified: Qwghlm, ChrisTheDude, Mattythewhite, Hashim-afc, Madshurtie, Ed g2s, Footieedit, WP Football, WP England, WP London, talk page notice 2020-12-11

Review section edit

This is a 2005 FA that was last reviewed in 2010. As noted a year ago on talk, it has image layout and MOS:SANDWICH issues, sporadic uncited text, and breaches of MOS:CURRENT and a lack of context on dates throughout. The star looks saveable to me, if someone will do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some image pruning/rearranging. I'll try and find some time to look over the other points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

work progressing, these empty sections should have some sort of prose summary:

Former players

For a list of every Arsenal player with 100 or more appearances, see List of Arsenal F.C. players. For record appearance and goalscorer statistics, see Arsenal F.C. records § Player records.

Club captains

Main article: List of Arsenal F.C. players § Captains

Player of the season

Main article: Arsenal Player of the Season Award

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed. I will also continue to look at the other points raised here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you are all done and ready for a new look, quite busy at another FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude update ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia sorry, forgot all about this. I will try and take another look today........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are incomplete citations, non-reliable sources, and a ton of books listed in Further reading that aren't used as sources, while a whole lot of the article is cited to news sources. A sourcing overhaul is probably needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude how is this coming? I see there are still a lot of citation cleanup needs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia TBH I've kinda lost enthusiasm for working on this one........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, sadly, per above. There's still quite a bit of sourcing work needed here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Remaining issues largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sadly, because this article get extremely high page views ... but that is all the more reason it should be watched and maintained, but it is not. Issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist; it appears that the issues here will not be addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues still not addressed (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [28].

Jabba the Hutt edit

Notified: Dmoon1, TAnthony, UpdateNerd, David Fuchs, Treybien, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Fictional characters, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-03

Review section edit

The article has gone through changes over the years since its FA promotion in 2006. Issues were raised in March of last year, like large amount of unsourced/unverified info, odd and imbalanced structure/layout (e.g. appearances before design, more in-universe details and less real-world perspectives). There have been edits since, but the issues apparently still persist, i.e. haven't been yet addressed. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho is there an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I checked over and over just to be sure. All I see are minor cleanups, eliminating alternative name from lead, and reverts. Issues still unaddressed, even with "cn" tags. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, per George Ho. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC sourcing concerns remain. I also think there's a lot of fancruft, with two sections talking about his appearances in the franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~, considerable issues, no progress. Chompy Ace 08:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking delist for now, as work has been occurring, so keep. Chompy Ace 00:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, goes against the manual of style, citation needed tags, definitely not up to modern featured article standards.--The helper5667 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I touched it up some how does it look now? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, you removed starwars.com; from what I can tell, it was a primary source (official website) and would be reliable. Why remove it, and how is it unreliable? --George Ho (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad I thought it was something like Wookipedia. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the touch-up. Aside from layout changes and removal of unverifiable statements, both revisions appear almost no different from each other. I can't tell whether remaining major issues are addressed. George Ho (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @George Ho:, if you can give me a list of things that need to be fixed I can easily do them in hopes of keeping this a FA. Maybe give me like around a week and if it still looks bad we can delist it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I was just skimming the article; I haven't thoroughly reviewed the whole article yet. Talk:Jabba the Hutt#FA criteria concerns can help if possible. George Ho (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources you added:

Uncertain whether Uproxx's article is trustworthy, especially as a limited liability company (past discussions).

Per WP:RSP#Screen Rant: Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source but is not considered reliable for info about living persons.

Regarding Comic Book Resources, its same company also owns questionable Screen Rant. That shouldn't make CBR less reliable, should it?

According to one past discussion, Looper is a clickbait website and unreliable.

WP:RSP is a good list of which sources to use or avoid, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure the way I used the screen rant, cbr, and Uproxx is fine and I’ll look into replacing looper. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: How's it lookin now? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I wonder whether an inline ref for Kevin Michael Richardson as one of voice actors in Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film), the info you removed, is necessary. The film has ending credits and, despite being a primary source, is more reliable than looper. Sometimes, I don't use inline refs for info provided by primary sources themselves, but that's just me.

The Daily Beast's reliability has been debated for years, and the community couldn't come up an agreement about what to do with it. Yet they have reservations or cautions about using it for controversial statements about living persons, like Andrew Cuomo. I also wonder whether the Cuomo addition is due or undue weight.

Also, the community hasn't reached an agreement about the reliability of Business Insider, yet they have considered its Culture section reliable. The way you used the opinion piece to verify that person's opinions may be okay for me as long as it's not used to verify factual statements, but someone else may disagree with me.

The rest are fine to use, but that's just me. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC); edited, 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: I never used a Daily Beast ref tho, I used the Daily Voice. Also I dont see how it is undue weight I think its a good example for the past sentences right before it Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight or appearance. In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy, especially in the business world. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad! I got confused and overlooked "Voice". George Ho (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: So what is left that I can do? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... Can't think of anything else to suggest other than.... Well, best to leave the article alone for now if (1) either no major issues remain or (2) other major issues still remain, but you are unable to figure out what to do with them. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chompy Ace: and @The helper5667: what do you gys think of the article now? Anything that jumps out to you that I can fix? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further improvements have either slowed down or stopped for at least a week or two. Also, one of editors whom Kaleeb18 pinged hasn't responded yet. George Ho (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, sample, five-year-old speculative content, and no one is working on the issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done and y’all aren’t telling me what the problems really are. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @SandyGeorgia: I think I might have fixed the issues now. Do you still see things I can fix. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will catch once others have finished their reviews; sorry to be running behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ - reception section is a mess. A mixture of trivial cultural references, empty placements on listicles, and trivia from various fictional works, rather than actual reception of a major cultural figure. Hog Farm _Talk 03:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I’m sorry but can you go more in depth for me on what the trivial info is and what empty placement on listicles means, because I’m willing to fix it. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 14:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is with stuff like "Jabba the Hutt became an icon of not just Star Wars, but American popular culture as a whole" - yet that sweeping statement is supported by 1) a citation to a toy directory; 2) a book review of a graphic novel; 3) Spaceballs; 4) a short-term museum exhibit; and 5) a parade float. That's a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by a scholarly journal article or at least a higher-quality journalistic piece supported by a collection of trivia. Or "Since the release of Return of the Jedi, the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity. The name is utilized as a literary device—either as a simile or metaphor—to illustrate character flaws" - another broad, sweeping statement, but it's supported by random lines from novels, and excessive detail about a humor/introduction to Buddhism book.

Again, a broad sweeping statement that should be backed up by scholarly or "higher journalism", rather than fictioncruft. For the listicles bit, that paragraph contains 6 facts - 5 of them are Jabba being ranked in lists of Star Wars characters - including a physical attractiveness one that I'm not convinced is encyclopedic. The first paragraph of Homer Simpson#Analysis is a better (but not perfect) way to do that. Hog Farm _Talk 00:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you, I've tried to do some work to the article based on what you've said so what do you think now as it probably still needs help? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend removing "For example, in Under the Duvet (2001), Marian Keyes references a problem with gluttony when she writes, "wheel out the birthday cake, I feel a Jabba the Hutt moment coming on."[69] Likewise, in the novel Steps and Exes: A Novel of Family (2000), Laura Kalpakian uses Jabba the Hutt to emphasize the weight of a character's father.[70]" unless out-of-plot significance can be established, and then providing a better source for the sentence before it. Ideally, we should have more of the higher-level criticism such as "the name Jabba the Hutt has become synonymous in American mass media with repulsive obesity and a negative term to call someone.". Hopefully we can find some journal articles or a journalistic piece or two that provides some of this higher-education coverage; but I have no idea where to look for such sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Me either, but I will remove it and try to find something probably tomorrow. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: so what do you think about the edits i made to the section mass media? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is improved, although I'm not super familiar with handling reception of fictional items. Hog Farm _Talk 05:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Alright, I think I have fixed the reception now. Do you think the article should still be delisted, if so please tell me what else needs changing. Thank you. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it'll need a bit more work yet, but I'm not familiar at all with potential sourcing or even what is really currently standard for article like this, and I have no idea who to ask. Pinging George Ho as FAR nominator and David Fuchs as the one who left the notice. Hog Farm _Talk 16:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't nominated GA ever. Rather it was promoted FA in 2006, and I've never reviewed FA nominations before. Nonetheless, I've taken FA-promoted articles to review before. Except Quatermass and the Pit, most articles I've taken to review were delisted. The matter isn't whether the article meets FA's current standards. Rather it's whether the whole article still meets WP:FACR.

Regarding criterion #3 (Media), five non-free images and one free image are used. The lead image is still appropriate, and an image of the comic version of him is appropriately used as a body. Unsure what else to say about rationales. Most of file pages of those images seem to almost copy each other, and the lead image's rationale is almost complete. But those issues may be fixable. Regarding #4 (Length), well... the article has stayed on topic... hopefully, because the article has been about the fictional character. Unsure whether it's exactly "well written" (#1a), but the writing isn't too bad to my eyes.

Unsure about #1b (comprehensive) and #1c (well researched), but at least it kinda meets #1d~1f in my eyes. ~~Reading the lead, however, I was unsure how else to say about it. Well,~~ I changed one of the 'First appearance's in the infobox from "Star Wars" to "Return of the Jedi", which was his first real-world film appearance. Hopefully, no one objects to the change. Unsure about consistent citations (#2c), but I don't mind the reference style(s) used there. George Ho (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was in a rush, I forgot my further comments about the lead. Three paragraphs are decent amount. I wasn't sure whether the lead emphasizes too much or too little. After re-readings, ~~however, I guess there's nothing wrong with the lead as it is.~~ The first paragraph briefly introduces the character and details his (fictional) language.

The second paragraph details what he really is in the right amount, but "the storyline context of the original trilogy" somewhat irks me because, as said before, his first real-world film appearance was Return of the Jedi and... well, when I was watching the original versions of the original trilogy, I couldn't pay attention to much of the dialogue and couldn't care less about Jabba as an off-screen character. Howevery, if anybody else here is fine with it, then... okay.

The third paragraph briefly his media appearances and what he symbolizes. ~~So far, looks okay overall.~~ BTW, I renamed "Cultural impact" to "In popular culture" and separated it from "Reception", and I changed the sentence's tone more active. Are these edits okay? George Ho (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind about the lead per SandyGeorgia's review. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it passes #1b I looked for sources that could be major things and I found none. I also looked at Wookiepedia to see if that had anything major that we didn't, and there was none. I am also unsure about #1c but I know it is a lot better than before after I verified a lot more info. Definitely passes #1d, #2e, and for #1f. For #2a I actually think the lead is not bad surprisingly. I think #2b is good. I think #2c is good after I removed unverified info I could not find RS for it, and after I replaced citation needed templates. For #3 the only image I might have a problem with is the 2nd one. I can truly say that I think it passes #4 after reading it 3 times. Also George Ho, I think your edits are fine, but I do not think it really matter if "In popular culture" is its own section or in reception, but my opinion is that it stays in reception, but that is just my opinion. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 01:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't belong in the article, then a screenshot of the deleted scene (File:FordandMulholland.jpg) should be either in Declan Mulholland or PRODded (either manually with {{subst:PROD}} or via Twinkle). What would you like to do? George Ho (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Oh wait I forgot Declan Mulholland is dead. Now I really don't know what to do with it. Do you think it should stay? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded File:Declan Mulholland photo.png as the lead image for the actor bio. George Ho (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an idea. Which any of the images (1997 version, 2004? version) do you think should be used? I thought uploading one or two more screenshots. George Ho (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: used for what? ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: I intend to use the "CGI" Jabba image(s), either 1997 and/or 2004 versions, for the "Episode IV: A New Hope" subsection to either compare with the stand-in actor image or replace it. George Ho (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Maybe use the 1977 version so the readers can understand why it got a lot of hate. As seen in the critical response section. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: When you typed "1977", do you mean 1997 Special Edition version or the original 1977 deleted scene one? --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: oops my bad I meant 1997. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey George Ho would you mind looking over my rewrite of the lead and fixing any problems you might see. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 02:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://carnegiemuseumnaturalhistory.tumblr.com/post/184620311591/is-jabba-the-hutt-a-slug is flagged by Headbomb as unreliable (I don't know where to figure out why, but it appears to be a museum employee blogging). If lots of sources think Jabba the Hutt is a slug, surely a better source can be found. If not, the information may be WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's tumblr. Social media is as reliable as the account owner. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, here is Lucas Films on slug, which is cited in the body of the article, so a) no need to cite it in the lead at all, b) it is not controversial, and c) no need to source to a marginal blog. That said the entire first para of the lead needs to be rewritten anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~None of these are cited in the article; unclear why they are there.~~
What was "Further reading" in the FA version, was incorrectly moved to "Works cited", and have now been deleted entirely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this in External links?
What makes https://www.consumerfreedom.com/about/ a reliable source, and even if it is, it cannot be used to cite the sweeping statements that are sourced to it (sample: Outside literature, the character's name has become an insulting term of disparagement. To say that someone "looks like Jabba the Hutt" is commonly understood as a slur to impugn that person's weight or appearance.)
Copyedit needs, colloquialisms, redundancies, tense changes, samples only (not comprehensive):
- "In another sense of the term, Jabba the Hutt has come to represent greed and anarchy ... "
- "Robin Mukherjee wrote about what inner selves were like and described his "inner self" to Jabba the Hutt, stating: ..."
- "The Turkish Cultural Community of Austria called out a Lego toy set of Jabba's palace of being racially biased of two religious structures in Turkey."
- "They stated it was clear as what it was going for as Jabba the Hutt ... "
- "With the premiere of Return of the Jedi in 1983 and the accompanying merchandising campaign, Jabba the Hutt has extended his popularity in other things besides Star Wars. "
- " Jabba the Hutt ... is an ... alien known as a Hutt who operates as a powerful crime lord within the galaxy.
The lead is disorganized ... the first paragraph tells us who developed a language, which is surely not one of the most important things to know here. This is found in the lead:
- The character has incorporated prominently into Star Wars merchandising beginning with the marketing campaign corresponding with the theatrical release of Return of the Jedi.

I remain at Delist, as stated above; edits are being made but the article is not heading towards FA status. This was not even a comprehensive look; the glaring deficiencies here stand out on a cursory look; this article will be better served if delisted, with a return to FAC if it is rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I have done all that you stated (I think). I didnt remove Wookiepedia from external links as that is pretty normal for a star wars character. See The Mandalorian, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo as references.

You addressed almost nothing that I mentioned, and even if you had, I provided only samples of the prose issues. A top-to-bottom copyedit is needed; the prose is not at FA standards. There is no need to ping me again, until/unless an independent copyeditor, experienced with FA standards, has been through, and reliability of sources has been checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sample of prose from the first paragraph in the lead:

. He was originally supposed to first appear in Star Wars (1977) as a stop motion character with Declan Mulholland as his stand-in ...

We can't get there from here ... this FAR needs to be shut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is significantly improved from where it was when I dropped off my comments on the talk page (and I want to credit Kaleeb18 for the work they have done), but I agree with Sandy above it's still significantly distant from modern FA standards for an article of this type. The main issue is that the real-world reception and impact seems incredibly thin. A quick search on my local library's database and scholar.google.com picks up a lot of potential coverage for the thematic use of the character, but I feel like there's also got to be more general reception (perhaps going back to look at contemporary reviews so see how the character was received at the time?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David Fuchs. Maybe I’ll try to work on this article some more later, when I become a more experienced editor. I just hate to see an article like this get delisted because we all know it’s likely this article wont be touched much for a while. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 13:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes that's just the best outcome; going through another FAC in the future will make a better article. Whether or not it retains featured quality doesn't really relate much to how much attention it gets; most Wikipedia articles are just one or two dedicated editors from being substantially better, and your efforts have still made this article improved over the one viewers were reading a few months ago, so I don't think it's been a net negative. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for now, per David Fuchs; hopefully this one will be back at FAC some day. Hog Farm _Talk 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [29].

Wesley Clark edit

Notified: Staxringold, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject NATO, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Vietnam, WikiProject University of Oxford, WikiProject United States, WikiProject United States presidential elections, WikiProject GLAM/Pritzker Military Museum & Library, 2021-12-21

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article does not contain much post-2008 information on this person. There's also uncited statements (not good for a BLP), unreliable sources such as a blogspot and DailyKos, short sections that should be expanded upon or merged together, and a very large 2004 presidential campaign section which I believe can be trimmed (Note: both the 2007 version that passed FAC and the 2022 version are 9 paragraphs long, but I still think it can be and should be trimmed per WP:SUMMARY) Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issues identified are sufficient to delist unless resolved. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cinderella157: During the review process, editors usually vote either to move the nomination to FARC (Featured article removal candidates) or to keep it here as long as improvement is done. 'Keep' or 'Delist' is voted during the FARC process. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no edits to address issues (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC; no progress. There are many low-quality sources, and the reference formatting is problematic as well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC; besides the above-noted sourcing issues we're citing " Google search results containing real estate listings for Wesley Clark Blvd in Madison, Alabama." and a LinkedIn page. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no significant improvement (t · c) buidhe 06:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist substantial sourcing issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – the problems identified above still remain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [30].

Same-sex marriage in Spain edit

Notified: User talk:Raystorm, User talk:KLO2015, User talk:Panda2018 0, User talk:Drachenfyre, User talk:Jedi Friend, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Law, talk page notice 2021-11-28

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page statement, I do not think that the article has been sufficiently updated to incorporate recent research and new information on the topic, as detailed on the talk page. For example, there is currently no explanation why Spain was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage (8 years earlier than neighboring France). Therefore I do not think it currently meets that FA criteria of "well-researched" or "comprehensive" (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no progress (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no edits since listed on FAR and the history section stops at 2005. The article needs an update. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a queer Spaniard, I'm certainly glad to work on this if someone else is willing to track my progress/give me some guidance on where to start. My ADHD makes it somewhat hard to stay focused on unfamiliar endeavors, so I don't necessarily need another editor to work on the article as well, just some eyes :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. after I put so much effort into checking and cleaning up the citations and expanding for comprehensiveness when this was at FAC, I can't muster the interest to do it all again considering the nominator let it fall into disrepair. (I may be one of the highest editors there simply because of the cleanup I did because I speak Spanish.) All I can offer is, be sure to add |trans-title when you translate titles, and see WP:NONENG (I usually add quotes to the citation, see the El Pais source here). And, remember to disambiguate common sources like El Nacional. And remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. The work here has to be fun, and doing this the second time around won't be for me; it's just disappointing after all the hard work I put into cleaning it up back in 2007.

My other concern is that the significant amount of new scholarly material on this makes it a daunting task to incorporate all of it, especially with so few of us who speak Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate if you could expand on remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. How should quotes and the like be handled in this case? I've seen a few articles have the original and a translation side-by-side. I doubt extensive translations will be very necessary for this article (legal terms seem like a short exception), but I think I asking for explanation on this point can only be for the better. Regarding the significant amount of new scholarly material, I can't promise I'll do a great job at it, but I'll do my best. Even if it's not enough to get it to maintain FA, at least it will be improved somewhat :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have the misconception that translation should be precise and exact, but then you get into plagiarism if you haven't rephrased in your own words. Any time you use the actual words from the source, even if you translate them from Spanish to English, you have to put them in quotes and attribute, unless you have rewritten the content in your own words. If you are translating a quote of someone else's words, you should put their exact words into the quote= field of the citation template, so others can check your translation. See the El Pais sample I gave you above. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have 3 quartile exams in a week and a half from now so I probably won't be able to get much work till then, with the recent ARBCOM thread being the focus of my wiki work until then. If that's too long a wait, that's understandable. I'll see what I can do afterwards. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it up now :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress: so far there have been no major changes except a few edits inserting questionable sources such as cristianosgays.com, a blog. A. C. Santacruz, I totally understand if you can't get to this article, but if not we should probably move to FARC. (t · c) buidhe 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, buidhe. I thought I'd mentioned I haven't had enough time lately to really work on articles (health and family issues plus studies mean I don't have the clarity of mind or long spans of free time to really dig through sources) aside from small things here and there. Apologies for not saying so before. This should move to FARC and I'll see if I can work later in the year and renom, as I don't expect to really have much time until summer. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, per A. C. Santacruz (and restoring this article to FA status will be a huge effort). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, considerable issues raised above, unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 06:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - need significant work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [31].

My Belarusy edit

Notified: Z1720, Zscout370, SUM1, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Songs, talk page notification 2018-08-18

Glide08 please use {{subst:FARMessage|My Belarusy|alt=My Belarusy/archive2}} ~~~~ to notify the list of parties and pages above. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I have completed the notices. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to be lacking information behind the history of the anthem and the process of its creation and doesn't delve much into analyzing the anthem's lyrical content and music (for example, no mention is made for the allusion to the motto Long Live Belarus! in the chorus, despite the fact that its inclusion is anathema to the Lukashenko's government policy of Soviet nostalgia in state symbols). Glide08 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the talk page in December 2021, I identified issues of comprehensiveness, particularly the creative process and development of this song and no analysis of the lyrics and music. Glide08, as a subject matter expert, has identified the specifics of what is missing, which I think is beneficial if an editor wants to bring this back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits since 17 Jan (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - comprehensiveness issues; minimal/no engagement to correct concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above, issues still present (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [32].

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters edit

Awadewit, WP Books, WP Women writers, WP Women's history, talk page notification 2021-11-29

Review section edit

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained. I added cn and or tags almost a year ago that have gone unaddressed, and Buidhe mentions on talk new sources that should be incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

Buidhe listed three sources on talk; one appears not to be high quality~~, and best I can tell, the other two have nothing new to offer. They have been added to Further reading, but I question their usefulness at all.~~

~~There are several sources in the Bibliography that aren't used at all; they should be moved to Further reading or removed.~~ (Converting to sfns will make it easer to locate errors like this one.)

Czar has been working on this article, such that the tags have been removed, but that does not make it out of the woods. The nominator's early FAs had original research, uncited text and synthesis; without having access to the sources, it is hard to determine if that is still present here, although the instances I tagged have been resolved. There is a lack of attribution of opinions and quotes in several instances. A spotcheck of Sapiro would be the most helpful, if anyone has access to it, particularly pp. 13 and 239, and Jones, Literature of advice. For examples, these passages:

"Much of the book criticizes what Wollstonecraft considers the damaging education usually offered to women: "artificial manners", card-playing, theatre-going, and an emphasis on fashion. She complains, for example, that women "squander" their money on clothing, "which if saved for charitable purposes, might alleviate the distress of many poor families, and soften the heart of the girl who entered into such scenes of woe".[4]
This is all cited to one page of the book (primary).
In her later works, such as A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Wollstonecraft repeatedly returns to the topics addressed in Thoughts, particularly the virtue of hard work and the imperative for women to learn useful skills. Wollstonecraft suggests that the social and political life of the nation would greatly improve if women were to acquire valuable skills instead of being mere social ornaments.[5]
This is cited to multiple sources; are they saying she returned to this book in her later works, or is Wikipedia saying that?
~~The section "Genre: the conduct book" is generalized; are the sources sufficiently connected to this book in particular or is there synth?~~ This sentence goes off topic: "Typical examples include Bluestocking Hester Chapone's Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773), which went through at least sixteen editions in the last quarter of the 18th century, ... "
This sentence says "a few scholars", but cites to one only. Is that source citing other scholars? Who are they? "More recently, a few scholars have argued that conduct books should be differentiated more carefully and that some of them—such as Wollstonecraft's Thoughts—transformed traditional female advice manuals into "proto-feminist tracts".[17] These scholars view Thoughts as part of a tradition that adapted older genres to a new message of female empowerment, genres such as advice manuals for women's education, moral satires, and moral and spiritual works by religious Dissenters (those not associated with the Church of England).[18]"
Is this according to the sources, or to Wikipedia? "Yet at the same time, the text challenges this portrait of the "proper lady" by introducing strains of religious Dissent that promote equality of the soul. Thus, Thoughts appears to be torn between several sets of binaries, such as compliance and rebellion; spiritual meekness and rational independence; and domestic duty and political participation."
Is this according to sources, or to Wikipedia? "By the end of her life, Wollstonecraft had been involved in almost every arena of education: she had been a governess, a teacher, a children's writer, and a pedagogical theorist. Most of her works deal with education in some way."
This very short article contains some very long quotes from the book.
Is this according to the sources, or to Wikipedia? "Wollstonecraft assumes that the "daughters" in her book will one day become mothers and teachers."
... she writes, perhaps describing her own experiences ... looks like Original research; what source supports it?
Sources or Wikipedia? "While she does not break with the tradition of encouraging resignation in response to unideal circumstances, Wollstonecraft draws on religious tones in the Dissent tradition, that resignation can be pleasureful or sublime."
"Wollstonecraft even agrees with Rousseau ... "
Unattributed, mentions multiple scholars, but sources to one: "Although some scholars have argued that there are glimmers of Wollstonecraft's radicalism in this text, they admit that the "potential for critique remains largely latent"."

A spotcheck for original research and synth is needed; hopefully someone has access to the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czar are you planning to work further on this? I got access to three books via archive.org, and original research and source-to-text concerns are borne out based on that spot check; I am concerned we will need access to all sources to check this article. I can type up the issues I found later (iPad typing now). Do you have a means of accessing other sources? I added the archive.org links to the sources on those I found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I dug into a few of the references thinking that, at worst, we would just return the article to its 2007 baseline, but it appears that even those references only loosely connect to the text, at least in the case of the more complex multi-source references. I have some of these books and could do some reference cleanup but I left off thinking that this task is potentially more than a weekend project and whole sections might need rewriting or re-referencing. Alas, I'd rather not see Awadewit's Wollstonecraft featured topic go out this way, so I might try to poke around a bit more. In the meantime, advancing to FARC makes sense. czar 02:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally returning to this, I was able to access three books (Kelly, Poovey and Sapiro) by borrowing the books on archive.org . Based on those sources, I am able to strike one (above, the sources I could access do generally describe the book as a "conduct" book). But I found the following (sample) problems (from this version):

I am able to ascertain that I have the correct version of Kelly because this quote:
The ideal woman in Thoughts is, as Wollstonecraft scholar Gary Kelly writes, "rational, provident, realistic, self-disciplined, self-conscious and critical", an image that resembles that of the professional man. Wollstonecraft argues that women should have all of the intellectual and moral training given to men, though she does not provide women with a place to use these new skills beyond the home.[28]
is found on page 30 as indicated. The first sentence is fully verified. I did not locate support for the clause "though she does not provide women with a place to use these new skills beyond the home". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These two sentences are sourced to page 31 of Kelly:
By developing a specifically bourgeois ethos through genres such as the conduct book, the emerging middle class challenged the primacy of the aristocratic code of manners.[15]
Perhaps someone can borrow the book via archive.org (free registration) and show me where that is verified on page 31; the language is erudite and perhaps I'm just missing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wollstonecraft's feminist critics charged that the masculine role for women that she envisioned—one designed for the public sphere but which women could not perform in the public sphere—left women without a specific social position. They saw it as ultimately confining and limiting—as offering women more in the way of education without a real way to use it.[15]
Ditto for above; I'm not finding this on page 31. Perhaps that is because I don't speak this language, and it's somehow there but I'm missing it.
This text is cited to Kelly page 34, along with Richardson, page 26.
One critic said that the text reads as if it were simply trying to please the public.[38]
I don't find anything like that on page 34. Perhaps it's in Richardson.

I found similar with the other two sources I examined. Poovey is listed as a source, but not used. One difficulty here is that text is often cited to bundled sources; that is, one statement may be cited to five sources. But when I'm able to check one, I find none of the text supported by the source. Every instance of Sapiro is bundled with other citations, so having Sapiro alone isn't helpful. To be able to get this old work to standard requires access to all the sources listed, because of how statements are cited to three four and five sources in one. In summary, I find some source-to-text issues (which I wish someone else would look at), and I don't think it possible to determine if the problems I found with Kelly are pervasive without getting hold of all the sources, and in particular, Jones, "Literature of advice", which seems to be the backbone of the article's sourcing. Sadly, unless someone with access to sources is willing to look in here, I fear it will be moving on to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps the sources Buidhe listed can be sued to fill in the blanks; one of them does offer a critique of this work that could be incorporated, given the difficulty accessing other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anna Laetitia Barbauld/archive1, the review of these 2007 promotions (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thoughts on the Education of Daughters) was not strenuous. Ealdgyth was to being source reviews some time after these promotions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, it doesn't appear that anyone is willing to take on improving this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, apparently no one is willing to do the work here; hopefully someone will take this up, address original research and sourcing concerns, and the article will be brought to FAC again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - no improvements since Sandy's edits in late January, much work is needed here to correct the OR/sourcing issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist or and sourcing issues are unaddressed, no edits in February or March (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [33].

Ketuanan Melayu edit

Notified: Johnleemk, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Ethnic groups, 2021-12-01

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs to be updated with recent events; "update needed" banners have been in the article since August. There are also some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had a wary eye on this article for awhile and am not sure whether I have time to dig into it myself, but through a quick search saw that there seem to be a reasonable number of more recent sources available, which presumably would cover more recent info if it is due. CMD (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, what’s the status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The last edit to the article was Jan. 12, three days before I initiated this FAR. Problems still persist. I recommend a Move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, needed updating has not occurred. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and datedness. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no edits to fix issues, still has cleanup banner (t · c) buidhe 19:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: I see that you added information to update the article on current happenings. Are you interested in updating this article? Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd at least slowly chip away at what is needed for the update tag (although it may ask a bit much to go all the way up to Ismail Sabri Yaakob). I can take a look at other issues too, depending on what sources I can get access to. CMD (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I have added coverage of the interaction of ketuanan Melayu with recent politics. (Not Ismail Sabri Yaakob though despite the tag, his rise was much more entwined with Covid-19.) While there is undoubtedly room to improve my work, I believe the substance of the tag requests have been fulfilled. I would appreciate third-party assessment of this. CMD (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, there is uncited text and original research throughout, and at almost 16,000 words, the article fails to use summary style. There is inconsistent citation (some page numbers in notes, some with rp). And oddly, a 16,000-word article is tagged as needing expansion. WP:MSH and MOS:BOLD attention needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - extremely bloated, uses a self-published source (Rashid), there is uncited text sprinkled throughout, and both the final paragraph of the Malaysian Malay section and the uncited note footnoted there may be original research. Hog Farm _Talk 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC) [34].

Heavy metal music edit

Notified: WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Music, Music genres task force, Sergecross73, Ceoil, Piotr Jr., Aza24, Ihcoyc, OnBeyondZebrax, ‎Madreterra, talk page notification 2021-12-04

Review section edit

The issues about the "Women in heavy metal" section were initially raised in April 2021. To this date, the section has been still tagged for undue weight and insufficient worldwide representation. Furthermore, some more statements are tagged with "better source needed" and "citation needed". Also, four non-free audio samples remain, yet I wonder whether they comply with WP:NFCC. This isn't an FARC yet; rather this Featured Article still needs further attention and improvements. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: - why were no individual users notified about this? The original FAC nominator (User:Ihcoyc) from 2003 has still edited some over the last few months, User:OnBeyondZebrax is a significant contributor and is still active, as is User:Madreterra; User:Ceoil appears in the top 10 in authorship, is still active, and is quite good with music articles. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna notify users until you pinged. Also, I was in a rush when I was creating this review. Well... the users have been notified. George Ho (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: @George Ho: I do not see the required talk page notification two to three weeks before nominating. Where is that? Absent that, this FAR is out of process and should be placed on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about the "‘Women in Metal’ section balance issues" section made months ago? Isn't that enough? If we put this on hold, how else do I complete the process besides awaiting two to three weeks? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a WP:FARGIVEN. As Ceoil is the editor most likely to take an interest in this article, maybe we should hear from him before placing on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the article suffers from a lot of the issues that FAs from prior decades have - the standards have gotten higher, and I think this one no longer meets the modern standards. I also don't want this entirely tagged on the "Women in metal" entirely. As someone who's watched over (but mostly not written) the article, it's been subject to countless sexist efforts to scrub women from the article. It's wrong for it to be entirely pegged on those sections. In general, the article struggles with completely documenting more modern happenings from 2010 to the present. Which makes sense - I can testify, as someone who's been watching over it for many years - there aren't any experienced writers consistently adding to the article. It's fallen out of date. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 is bang on the money wrt the page; thats exactly what's happened. I'd be happy to let this go, as in am not in the mood (and dont have the time) for saving, much as I still love metal. This was a FAR save some 10 years ago, with Wesley and Geist, and both of them are long gone from the project (or have moved under diff guises to diff subject matter). Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re misogyny, hear loud and clear and have edited a bit, and re watchlisted. One thing to be clear, that tendency is more typical of the "lower" orders of metal (eg mid 80s NWOBHM, all hair-metal and late period nu-metal), whose fans are more into the perceived "attitude" rather than the music and contain an high % of, well basically, misfits and incels. Thinking about how to couch, but a mention is now in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Yeah I have no problem with altering or reworking, or adding more nuanced explanation. There's just been a number of people try to go the opposite route and just delete anything that's not 100% positive about the genre. I mean, all fanbases try that sort of stuff, but I've experienced it especially at this article. I believe I've largely warded off those attempts, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't go down that road in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil is this one salvageable, and are there plans to save? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ceoil agrees the FAR is needed, and isn't planning to take it on, I can see letting the FAR go forward, but hope George Ho understands the need for notification going forward; one goal is to not overwhelm those (few) editors who might take on saving the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already notified enough related WikiProjects and editors. Also, I created the notification as needed. I also don't intend to have the article lose its status, but I predict that it will, especially if much work isn't done and remaining issues aren't still resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC unfortunately it doesn't look like anyone has stepped up to do the work necessary to save the star (t · c) buidhe 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting because I was listed as a major contributor (which isn't really true, I just edited a few things a while back). I was surprised to find the repeatedly disproven notion that the Catholic Church "banned" the tritone interval in this article a few months ago (I've since clarified/removed it). If a completely incorrect idea like that can survive in the article since at least the last 2007 FAR, I have strong suspicions that the depth of research is probably lacking to some extent throughout. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist we're not seeing the kind of edits necessary to overhaul the article and get it to meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ - those more familiar with the subject matter than I (Ceoil, Aza, Sergecross) seem to agree that this does not meet the standards. Hog Farm _Talk 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my delist, as it looks like a plan for improvement is in place here. Hog Farm _Talk 16:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Taking another look, so can we hold for a week for an more in depth assessment. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Hold so Ceoil can assess the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have looked over during the day (but not yet edited) and some quick points to supporting holding the voting for now

Its well written, (mostly) well cited and hasn't changed drastically since a few months after the last FAR when DC Geist continued the expansion.
The language is a bit excitable in places, but nothing compared to say the recently delisted Punk rock, and don't see significant bloat
From a scan the sources are mostly grand...with some weeding and pruning needed
I agree with Aza that some of the music theory and terminology needs work
The sexism issue that brought this FAR has mostly since been addressed?
Its quite up-to-date with recent trends...as far as c. 2011...BUT there has been huge fragmentation since with the development of numerous micro-genres, the return of doom, and many types of metal-gaze
Still only very much looking...sorry this came so late! Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ceoil is at work here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil? (No edits since the 9th) George Ho, update/status? (It's very time consuming to have to check other nominator's FARs to see where things stand-- please keep us updated periodically so we don't all have to check.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.... .... .... ......... I checked the article sporadically, and I've not much to say about it. I'll take Ceoil's words about the article. If Ceoil's improvements stopped around that time, then I shall assume that remaining issues are still present and can still affect the article's status. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and addition of Gene Simmons's quote probably doesn't improve much, methinks. The article is too long for me to thoroughly review, so I'll skim through as much as I can... if my review is what you need. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want my further opinion, here it is: I'm unsure whether this blog post, which I just now recovered, is reliable. Also, the article heavily emphasizes on the pre-1980s history and treats 1980s and thereafter as if the music consists of more heavy metal subgenres than the heavy metal itself. I can't say whether it's a good or bad thing. Furthermore, I took ~~two~~ three audio samples to FFD. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George, if in doubt re sources, remove the ref and ag the claim. I'll be watching, and appreciate the pointers. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. My opinion is that the article is FAC standard, with issues around files (which George Ho, whom I have trust in with him having been most helpful on other music pages) seems to be on top of) and reference formatting. Honestly, I t would be a big job to fix the different ref styles (or lack there-of), but it would be a shame given the article is otherwise, surprisingly, still v good. I am totally over-committed IRL and here for a bit, but if this was let sit for a few months as I work though here and there, that would be great. Afer I report back here on refs, feedback re other issues would be most welcome. The former metalhead and current punk rocker Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Ceoil is planning to work on the article, and if the FAR is to hold, I will work on the citation formatting (but yea, I see lots of problems there, including incomplete citations that I may not be able to track down and possibly unreliable sources). George Ho, pls ping me should my help in citation formatting be needed; I don't really have time to take on that task unless the article is in the process of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, to be clear, I am willing to take on the burden of standardising the refs, and while there will be some culling (as highlighted above), most pass RS, but are all over the shop in formatting. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you plop in valid sources, I can clean up the formatting; just let me know when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are a star. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least one week later, very little further progress has been made so far. How long shall further improvements last? George Ho (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil and others; are we going forward with this? If so, should I convert book citations to sfns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My life circumstances have changed since the above posts, and with regret can no longer give a commitment to this page, except to say it is not a clear fail, and that - more or less - all that is needed is work on the cite format. Alas, but loosing the star doesn't take from the integrity of the page overall, and thus the heavy metal music community (who are much maligned but surprisingly self aware) will struggle on, and the article (imo) is still pretty, pretty wide ranging, representative (now), and of high value to readers.

The FAR back in the day lead to a lot of improvement that remain, if it has a star or not in 2022 doesnt detract from its overall quality. Thanks all to all who have looked in, but this has to be a delist: lack of time, the editors from the last FAR are mostly retired and /or blocked, etc, and hard as that is the FAC/FAR process has still delivered a page wiki can be proud of. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Ceoil. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Ceoil, sadly. Hog Farm _Talk 03:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 March 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, 3 March 2022 (UTC) [35].

D. B. Cooper edit

Notified: DoctorJoeE, Nishkid64, Indopug, Maclean25, Ealdgyth, TJRC, Sceptre, JeffUK, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Oregon, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Aircraft, WikiProject FBI, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-26

Review section edit

Thirteen years have passed since the article's promotion as Featured Article in March 2008. Issues about reliability of sources were raised initially by Hog Farm. Among the list of questionable sources are self-published sources and forum posts. There have been edits since the thread there was created at least two weeks ago. However, AFAICS, edits not yet challenged have been usually cleanups. Other edits have been reverted. The sourcing issue still hasn't been addressed. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - sourcing/original research concerns. Additionally, the article is currently the subject of an ongoing content dispute, so the recent editing history is mainly just reverting. Hog Farm _Talk 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC – per Hog Farm – zmbro _(talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review include sourcing and original research. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ issues still present (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ - the article has been and continues to be a magnet for additions of unreliable sources/original research/synth, the questionable sources identified by me on the talk page haven't been purged from the article, and there doesn't seem to be anyone providing a watchful eye to keep the iffy additions out. Hog Farm _Talk 19:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking delist for now, as work has been occurring. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cleaned out some of the more egreiously poorly sourced bits that had accumulated since 2008, but ideally the article needs a looking over by someone who's read the relevant books to ensure content - source integrity, since I suspect it's possible for claims to have worked their way in that aren't really supported by the references. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After taking a quick look through this article, I have some concerns:

The suspects section is incredibly long, with possible WP:OVERSECTION and I am unsure why these people are highlighted when, as the article states, thousands of people were considered. Did a source compile a list of most likely suspects? I don't think it's great that the article states that these are notable examples without a citation.
The Further Reading section needs a good trim, with high-quality sources used as citations in the article.
I don't think Inside Edition (ref 151) is a high-quality source.
Reference formatting is inconsistent. A "Works cited" should be split from the "Further reading" to prevent Harv errors.

@SnowFire: are you interested in continuing to fix up this article? If not, I'll recommend delisting unless someone else steps forward. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just doing minor cleanup, since at least some of it is low-hanging fruit. I will say that I suspect the article is at least GA quality? But FA quality really needs someone who's read at least two or three of the major books to affirm that the article matches their conclusions and the references check out, IMO.
While the suspects list is long, it does appear that these are all suspects who were sufficiently "notable" that they at least got local news to run stories about them. So it's not a total indiscriminate list of people the FBI checked. I suppose it could theoretically be split from the article on size concerns but I think that would be a bad idea and an invitation for overmuch detail in the split-off article.

I think I am more concerned about who isn't on this list: What determined the criteria of persons included as suspects in this article? Right now it seems like suspects were added as editors found sources for them. I would rather have a source generate a list of notable suspects to talk about on this article, if possible. I'm not to concerned about a spinout article: the FA criteria doesn't require spinout articles to be of any specific quality so it might be better for Cooper's article to have the info spunout. Also, I will note that many suspects were not present in the article when this was at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure I'd trust any single repository of all suspects myself, especially for people who were only raised as suspects after a book might have been published. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Inside Edition, I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw that used as a source - I removed both references that used it and made sure that what remained went back to the more reliable sources.
I'm not seeing any citation errors? The sfn refs appear to work fine for me at least, but maybe I'm missing something. SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use a script, available here: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors that highlights harv link errors. The errors are caused by the script seeing the books listed in a Further reading section. I'm not sure if this is a specific requirement for FA criteria, but I would suggest that sources used in the article are listed in a Works cited section, not Further reading. Also, there are many book sources that are not in sfn templates: either all books should use sfn templates, or none should. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that's the script being overly strict and marking something an error that's merely not the usual style - I can imagine an integrated "sources and further reading" section done well that'd be unusual but not invalid. That said, on closer inspection, the "Further reading" section had too much self-published quasi-spam, and the relevant books were actually cited rather than being "pure" further reading, so went ahead and converted the section into a Bibliography, integrating the occasional single citation into the material. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional comment if anyone wants to take a go at cleaning this one up - it seems that the Gunther 1985 book reference ("D. B. Cooper: What Really Happened") is pretty heavily contested by some sources that essentially accuse Gunther of making stuff up. It may well still be a notable book in Cooper lore to discuss (apparently some people got ideas about Cooper accusations from reading the book and it influenced perceptions of the case) but it sounds like it probably should be used very carefully, if at all, for the basic factual tale of what's known - but it's reasonably heavily cited at the moment, included in the "this is the boring consensus view" sections rather than the "here's some wild-eyed conspiracy theories that are notable but probably wrong" sections where such sources might be more acceptable). SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started working on the issues laid out here in hopes of potentially saving the article from delisting. Thanks SnowFire for the good feedback and your work so far. ––FormalDude talk 22:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the issue of the Gunther 1985 book raised by SnowFire. All Gunther references are now verified, corroborated by an RS, or have been removed.

I've also addressed the issue of the list of suspects raised by Z1720. There are now 3 references that are lists of notable suspects. ––FormalDude talk 18:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I think this one might be savable. Were you able to read Himmelsbach's book at all, as that one appears the "best" book on the FBI's take? I suppose I can go down to the library and check it out if you haven't. I think that's my main concern left.
To reply to myself: I suppose "be the change you want in the world", so I went ahead and put on a hold request for Himmelsbach's book at the library. It'll take a few days to come in though, so a matter for next week. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other note: Is "The Crime Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained" really a RS that you added? I didn't take a close look, but the title isn't encouraging - I'd definitely rather stick to literature that's specifically about Cooper, not passing mentions in a crime book that may simply be repeating Stuff They Read Somewhere Else.

Another (minor) issue with a reference: Currently Rhodes & Calame's book on the McCoy hypothesis (which they advocate for) is used as a source to describe the evidence against the McCoy hypothesis (ref 158 that starts with "Some notable examples" and is really more a footnote than a citation). That's very fair of them and fine to include, but it would be nice to verify that there's some "neutral" source that concurs with this as well. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Crime Book" is an RS that I added. It's written by multiple non-fiction crime authors and a historian. While it may be tertiary in nature, I have no reason to doubt its reliability.

I have been having trouble finding the book by Himmelsbach, I'm not sure my library has it. Much appreciated if you are able to help with that at all.

I think I see what you're saying with the third reference. It appears that ref 158 verifies the claim that the FBI did not consider him a suspect. ––FormalDude talk 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Himmelsbach's book came in earlier than I expected at the library. There's definitely been some citation drift since the FAC in 2008, and I've realigned some of the content to match the citation better diff. The bit about Cooper demanding takeoff occur with the aft staircase deployed and arguing over it is not in Himmelsbach - maybe it's real, but it's from somewhere else if so. Marked it as citation needed for now; can just remove it as well. Also requested a cite for the airplane landing at 10:15 in Reno. If we can't dig anything up in a few days, can just remove that too. SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @FormalDude: - Any interest in attempting to track down where this claim of an argument between Cooper & the crew over taking off with the aft staircase deployed is coming from? If not, I can just remove it, since my browsing of the sources didn't turn it up - but maybe I just missed it. Other than that, any feelings about the article, and if it's keepable-as-FA? It's a little unsettling how much the article is sourced to random news stories, but as best I can tell, Himmelsbach really is the only good "neutral" book on the topic... most all of the other books are also "let me show off my STUNNING NEW THEORY that Roderick G. Badguy was Cooper" on the side, which makes them a bit problematic to use. SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the ping, SnowFire. Yes I'd be happy to look into those two claims that failed verification. This source seems to provide corroboration: https://offbeatoregon.com/1306b-db-cooper-part-2-the-getaway.html. ––FormalDude talk 01:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm a bit skeptical that article is sufficient on its own as a source (website maintainer is apparently a college professor in Communications, which... isn't perfect for a FA [36]), but to his credit, he cited his sources, and it turns out his source was in Gray's book. Also it seems that the library has an electronic copy of it; updated the article to match. I'll try and look through Gray's book a bit more and see if there's any other adjustments to be made. SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay. I've finished reading / skimming Gray's book "Skyjack"... while it does thankfully cite sources in the back, it's a little chattier than I'd prefer. Anyway, the bad news is that I don't think it really adds that much, since Gray's New Yorker article is already cited a bunch, and the book adds a lot of uninteresting filler. The good news is that it does seem to basically confirm the slants given in the article. This definitely isn't a perfect article, and there's a lot more citing of random news stories than would be ideal, but given that nobody has published a real scholarly takedown on the topic other than maybe Himmelsbach (who can't be used for post 1980s developments), I think it may be the best on offer. So a weak keep? There's still some sources I don't like (Waymarking for the most obvious one, but it's also used to cite a trivial fact that is infuriatingly offline), but I think the article is in acceptable shape. Happy to take another hack at it if there's specific areas of concern. Thoughts, @FormalDude:? SnowFire (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe and Hog Farm: Since you !voted earlier, any thoughts? I think the article is probably keepable myself. The FAR was initiated on grounds of weak sourcing, and the worst sources have been removed. There's still some borderline sources in stuff like local Oregon newspapers which, while not banned, are not great, but think they're used basically appropriately. Also, the revised article seems to match my review of the literature without any major omissions. Any further removals required, or is this good to maintain FA status as is? SnowFire (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 20-year-old sources: "The crime remains the only unsolved air piracy in commercial aviation history.[4][5][6]". And why three sources? Either it does (today) or doesn't hold this record.
Don't start a sentence with a number: "$5,880 of the ransom was found along the banks of the Columbia River in 1980, which triggered renewed interest but ultimately only deepened the mystery."
Cited to a 2016 source, but stated in the present (what is the 2022 situation)? "The FBI officially suspended active investigation of the case in July 2016, but the agency continues to request that any physical evidence that might emerge related to the parachutes or the ransom money be submitted for analysis.[8]"
Not a sentence (ends a section): "Some notable examples:[116][121][122]"

Not a thorough read; just what I picked up on a quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'm not too worried about dated sources on the basic facts of the skyjacking - not a lot has happened in the core case details since the partial ransom recovery in 1980, mostly just new people to accuse of Maybe Being Cooper But With No Direct Evidence since then. Replaced the refs with a December 2021 one that asserted that it's still the only unsolved skyjacking. I don't really agree that starting sentences with a number is a problem, but I think that number is too much detail for the lede anyway, so moved to the body of the article regardless. I'm sure that the FBI still is accepting new evidence in the same way that they'll accept new evidence on unsolved cases from 1853, but it's not real likely, so removed that fragment for the definitely factual suspension of the main investigation. I think that the "Some notable examples:" is introducing a list but just in section form, but I changed it to a full sentence since it doesn't really matter either way. (I know you said that was just a skim, but as most of this isn't "my" text, I'm leery of doing a personal close copyedit myself.) SnowFire (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not looking too bad, but for a 9,000 word article, that's an awfully small lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the lede a tad (and removed refs from the lede after moving them into the body in appropriate spots). A lot of the article is talking about specific suspects - all of whom are Almost Certainly Innocent - so that list-of-suspects material doesn't really fit in the lede. Probably fair to expand Cooper's route, Cooper's hypothesized fate, and the impact on airport security though. SnowFire (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Any further comments? As noted above, I didn't really go over the prose with a fine-toothed comb, partially since the FARC nom just cited sourcing and partially because that isn't my forte. So it might not hurt for such a second pass, but it isn't so bad as to be delist-worthy I would hope. We good to keep if there are no more requests? SnowFire (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd definitely support keeping the article as FA at this point. ––FormalDude talk 00:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  User:FormalDude, did you intend to enter a Keep declaration? If so, you should bold your "Keep". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Since this review is still opened and there hasn't been further chatter, maybe a bolded vote will help to either close the review or to get additional feedback. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC) (EDIT: See below, striking keep.)[reply]
@Buidhe: to have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: to have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the false alarm; I thought I would only be cleaning up citations, but I am finding considerable sourcing problems here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In an experimental re-creation, with the same aircraft used in the hijacking in the same flight configuration, FBI agents pushed a 200-pound (91 kg) sled out of the open airstair and were able to reproduce the upward motion of the tail section and brief change in cabin pressure described by the flight crew at 8:13 p.m. It was concluded that 8:13 p.m. was the most likely jump time." I can't access the source; who concluded? The FBI concluded that ... ? Avoid passive voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The book was long since returned to the library, but yes, Himmelsbach / the FBI was who thought this, yes. I disagree that the passive voice is an issue here though since I don't think this statement should be over-qualified: I don't want to imply that it's controversial or that only the FBI thought this. It seems pretty accepted by everyone. That said, it's not a big deal, and I can make it say the FBI instead if desired. SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent citations; sources have been added over time by multiple editors, and they're a mess. The later citations have the URL linked to the publisher, not the title, and there is no consistency between cite news/cite web, how to list publishers vs works. I don't mind doing all the cleanup, but first want to know that others approve the prose, before I go through all the work, 'cuz It Is A Mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually airplanes fly from somewhere to somewhere: "The aircraft was operated by Northwest Orient Airlines and was flying from Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No "mystery" has been identified at the point in the lead when this statement is made: "which triggered renewed interest but ultimately only deepened the mystery;" presumably the myster(ies) are a) who was D.B. Cooper, and b) what became of him, but "mystery" is introduced before we know there is a mystery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That line was originally farther down in the lede but a different editor (not me) moved it up. I think it's obvious though: the mystery is who is D B Cooper and what happened to them? The first sentence calls the hijacker "unidentified" so disagree it hasn't been introduced yet that there's still unknown elements. SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~That's all from me; the article is worthy of a save, and I am willing to help clean up citations if others agree it is close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
Sorry, everyone, for the false alarm; this article has considerable sourcing issues, and should not have gotten this far at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, there are sourcing messes everywhere, and I don't think we can get there from here. It is unfortunate that no one checked the sourcing sooner. The article looks good on the surface, but what lurks inside a source check is frightful. @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and FormalDude:, sorry for the false alarm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped checking after 11 failed verification tags, and four unreliable source tags. I did not verify content for all the citations I cleaned up, lest anyone mistakenly assumes I did. And I did not finish citation cleanup, as not worth the five hours I already gave it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, and I am afraid that all of the FAC nominator's articles will need sizable source-text integrity repairs. See also Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barthélemy Boganda/archive1, as well as the source-text integrity issues noted at Talk:J. R. Richard and Talk:Thomas C. Hindman (the latter two need to go to FAR as well). I am afraid that it will be a lot of work to get the sourcing back up to grade here, especially given that amount of speculation/problematic additions that this article has been subjected to that Smith/Boganda/Richard/Hindman don't seem to have been. Hog Farm _Talk 03:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho are you following? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I don't feel like interfering very much. I just happen to see the results of this. --George Ho (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I agree that source-cite integrity was the major concern when I looked into this before (as stated), and I did make some major changes in my earlier examination to correct article drift since promotion. The reason SandyGeorgia & I got different impressions was (I suspect) that I did not, however, vigorously remove "extra" citations I couldn't check; I erred on the side of leaving them around in case they had some minor value. I figure if they're additional data, they're Basically Harmless, and only removed egregiously unreliable sources. What I did check was that the overall content matched with Himmelsbach's book (and to a lesser extent, Grey's book), such that there weren't any wild claims. That's why I was suggesting keep above: even if some of the sources are weak or unreliable, they aren't the foundation the article is built on. If some of these sources are weak, whatever, just remove them. (For example, I agree that the serial number checker website is hardly a great source, but it's also only used to support a claim about what serial numbers were used, basically a trivia point.) I see the Rolling Stone article was marked as better cite needed - I didn't login to read it myself, but I'm pretty sure that the statement it backs is in Himmelsbach & is non-controversial. I guess I should have added a cite there when I had the book checked out, but didn't want to spam over citations, and Rolling Stone is reasonably reliable? I can't read the whole article so maybe it's awful, just going on general reputation here. It's a good catch that through drift, the FBI "Help Us Solve the Mystery" cites ended up in random spots and should be removed, but again not really a concern if the material is still sourced elsewhere. Basically, the article might be guilty of having some questionable citations, but that are also non-essential nor THAT important.
Anyway, is it worth getting the book out of the library again? I really don't think these issues are that bad. Would just sprinkling even more Himmelsbach cites everywhere to replace the news articles be what's being requested? Or is there some deeper issue? SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, side note, but I see that SandyGeorgia de-capped the title of some of the newspaper citations (e.g. "Hijacker Collects Ransom of $200,000; Parachutes From Jet and Disappears"). The documentation of Template:Cite news clearly shows examples in title caps that respect the style of the original article, though, and the original headline was indeed in title caps. Any objection to restoring this to title caps? SnowFire (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The article needs a consistent citation style. Books are always title case. It is up to editor discretion whether the rest are title or sentence case, as long as we pick one style and are consistent (the article before I started was a mixed mess-- there was no citation style on any parameter). If you switch anything, they all have to agree, so undoing the work I have done now would be unnecessary work. We don't have to respect the case of the original article; we use our own house style, which simply requires consistency.
  Re, should you check the book out again? Considering these same kinds of problems are throughout the FAC nominator's other work, I will not be entering a Keep declaration on this article unless someone goes through Every Single Citation and verifies it with a reliable source. That is, a line-by-line source-to-text integrity check; stuff in here is just made up. Are you up for that ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As another comment, re Hog Farm... I don't know the original nominator at all, but to defend their honor slightly, checking the article at time of promotion in 2008, the various references to the FBI "Help Us Solve the Mystery" page (several of which were tagged failed verification by Sandy in the current form of the article) all seem to check out then, except for one maybe (the claim that it was dark - but not a big deal, it was indeed dark, a statement perhaps referenced later). This was just the normal passage of time on an article more popular with random good-faith editors that shifted some of the references around to be far from the claim that they were actually verifying. SnowFire (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  How are you able to check that content was verified in the original version? That FAC was promoted (by me, as a new FAC delegate) before Ealdgyth started serious sourcing checks later in 2008, and before we started source-to-text integrity checks on every new nominator after the Halloween 2010 copyvio debacle. I pulled up the oldest archive.org version, and got nothing. At any rate, if the content is now verifiable, that has not been done with updated citations, and 15 years worth of work is needed. The other articles written by the same nominator have required line-by-line rewrites; that's what is needed here. A complete rewrite to sources that meet FA standards. And using a consistent citation style; I spent five hours cleaning up citations for non-reliable sources that didn't verify text. (And that was only half the article.) Better to enter the citations correctly the first time.
  It is great that you read a book and believe the article is verifiable, but that information will be of no help to us five years down the road, when we are facing FAR again; we need citations added to reliable sources that meet FA standards; those will endure so that we don't have to go through this again in a few years. It's unfortunate that you didn't replace them when you had the book. My recommendation is that this article be delisted, and you can bring it back to FAC in a new, rewritten version, and then you own the shiny star :)
  Also, per Hog Farm, source-to-text integrity issues are found throughout the FAC nominator's work, and we can't expect either our readers or other editors to "take our word for it" on sourcing. Indy beetle was able to salvage Barthélemy Boganda partly because they had already written many FAs and know the standard. When the next FAR comes up from the same nominator, we need to be sure there is a rigorous look under the hood before anyone wastes time polishing prose and cleaning citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  As I've been mentioned here, would like to note that Sandy's general point is correct in my experience. For the Boganda article rewrite I obtained most of the source material that was originally cited to double check it; took a lot of time but allowed me to find both inaccuracies and text that leaned a little close to plagiarism (both of these require rewriting the text in question). A lot off old FAs have citations that do not support the text given, sometimes due to good faith carelessness, and sometimes due to original research. Right now I'm doing an extensive rewrite of the former FA Hamlet chicken processing plant fire. While I'm using mostly newer sources, I've found several instances of text cited to old sources during its FA days that was not actually supported by those sources (this was not a case of "drift" in some instances, some of these problems were there when the article was promoted). Old FAs require source checks, hefty spot checks at the least and near-total ones if a problem is uncovered. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Re Sandy's question of "how was I able to check the content was verified": I meant very specifically for the one source I mentioned above, the "Help Us Solve The Mystery" refernece which you tagged with failed verification several times. I looked at the page as it existed on the Wayback Machine and compared it to the version of the article in 2008. Now, if Indy Beetle says that this editor's other work had to be substantially rewritten, I believe him of course, I was just saying that in the instance I checked, it wasn't the worst kind of sourcing issue where a simply invalid citation is used. The citation as used in 2008 was for material on the page (including the one part I thought was missing, upon closer inspection of the source). SnowFire (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at today's edits, Snowfire made these changes.

~~A source which is accessible and verifiable by any reader (The New York Times) was changed to a book that requires a trip to a library. Why was NYT removed~~ and how are you adding page numbers from a book you said you returned to the library?
On the paragraph about the 9,710 bills remaining, the non-reliable source was removed, but the text was merged to another source, ref name isodbc. None of that text is in that source. So, we're not going forward, and constant rechecks will be needed (but to a book the rest of us don't have). I hope the @WP:FAR coordinators: will shut this down so reviewers don't have to chase their tails on source-to-text issues for much longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the book is accessible to anyone (free registration) via archive.org. @SnowFire: Are you using a different edition? One of the changes in the diff Sandy posted (heavy rainstorm cited to Himmelsbach) is definitely not on the pages indicated. Spotchecks show that some of the other claims attributed to Himmelsbach are also not on the pages cited, and unless there's a clear reason for that such as a variation in editions, I'm inclined to close this as delist due to the verifiability concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy: I believe you misread my edit? I did not remove that citation to the New York Times nor replace it with a book citation. The same NYT article was cited in two separate references somehow (the ref you renamed "Caldwell1971" elsewhere). I merely changed the reference to be a copy of it. It still goes to the exact same NYT article, "Hijacker Collects Ransom of $200,000; Parachutes From Jet and Disappears".
  My apologies; struck above. It's not only that there is no citation style; there's no ref naming convention, so that's a mess too. I am trying to move to ref name=AuthorDate, where possible, so we can eliminate duplicates. (Which is exactly what you did, so thank you!) If you intend to save this article, work will have to be much more systematic and methodical, because it has bad bones, hidden behind competent prose. What you describe below as partial edits will confuse. Everything needs to be checked systematically, top-to-bottom, verified, not from memory because you read it in a book, and a citation style needs to be established. I use sentence case on everything but books, and italicized publishers only for hard print sources. For this article, all books in works cited with sfns. I have fixed citation formatting on only about half so far, and have not checked more than what I flagged for source-to-text integrity or too close paraphrasing. There is a mountain of work to be done here if you intend to save the article. My apologies that yesterday's work left me frustrated and ... short-tempered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My apologies as well, I wasn't trying to waste your time earlier and appreciate you taking a look, but I guess there was a mismatch in communications or expectations. I suppose I should have been more precise about exactly what I did and didn't do: I stand by what I said above that the article seems to be basically on point, but I wasn't blind to some of the weak sources either that were left in - just figured that it wasn't a FARC-breaking deal after I removed the worst ones from earlier and nobody else chipped in as requesting further pruning. SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria: I was not using the Archive.org version. I'm not seeing it come up on a search of archive.org - can you send the link over so I can see if it has the same pagination as the version I did? I was half=way through some changes - apologies on the copied reference in the edit above, that was just a clerical error. However, the other Himmelsbach cites were from reading the book, yes, so I disagree that there's a mismatch there. SnowFire (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Ninja edit, wrote this and got edit conflict'd) Never mind, I found it now, although it says "borrow unavailable" (probably because you checked it out). So I can't immediately tell if there was some sort of version mis-match. (The version I had definitely didn't have the cover that the archive.org version had, but that might just be because the dust jacket came off or the like, since Worldcat claims there was only one version.) SnowFire (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then all book pages need to be checked, versus the archive.org version (since there is only one version). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Nikkimaria: Thanks for the heads up that archive had this, should make things much easier. It's the same pagination / version on archive.org. If you saw something that failed verification other than that regretted C&P error I added recently (and have since removed), feel free to drop a tag on it. I'll go ahead and double-check but per above, this is basically what I did a month or so ago, so it shouldn't be THAT bad. SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to expand on the above: This was not a "mission complete" edit that declared there was nothing else to be done. I was merely removing the bad source on the bills, yes, and I agree with Sandy that a replacement source should be added. I'll add the cn tag myself next time I make such a removal, I guess. (The fact that the bills weren't recovered is mentioned in multiple sources so it shouldn't be hard to source, just... again, that was not a "complete" edit, I'd been intending to do a series). SnowFire (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would like to note that the "Similar hijackings" section appears to be mostly OR/SYNTH. There doesn't seem to be secondary sources describing these all as "similar" to the Cooper hijacking, and noting their importance relative to the Cooper case such as they would all warrant a summary. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that section might be bloated and the sources are not as strong as would be preferred in a FA (lots of local news stories - can probably trim some), but I disagree it's OR. As the section notes, Cooper was credited with "inspiring" a lot of copycat hijackings in the sources. I can see saying that a random local news article connecting Cooper with (random 1972 hijacker) was just the 1970s equivalent of clickbait and should be given less weight, but it is real. Anyway, McCoy Jr.'s hijacking was similar enough he was considered a suspect to be Cooper too and he's covered by sources, so he's definitely legit. McNally apparently directly credited Cooper in a recent podcast for giving him the idea. Cini, LaPoint, and Hanehman are a little more distant - news articles mention them in the same breath as Cooper since they were temporarlly close skyjacking crimes involving parachutes, but it's unclear if LaPoint or Hanehman were directly inspired. I think it's probably okay to stand just to set the scene of similar hijackings in the time period, myself. SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Indy beetle. (And note that neither this OR, nor most of the other issues present today, were in the version that passed FAC.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've struck my keep and will just abstain. I still don't think the article is that bad, but I don't want to get a bad reputation for wasting FARC reviewer's time. I've said from the start (when criticizing the article!) that the article does indeed have some weak sources in it, but I had hoped it was FA quality in spite of this because there simply weren't better ones (while the topic is covered, a vast amount of the coverage is unreliable and even less usable than the existing sourcing). If we're going to say that won't fly (har har), then I suspect for everyone's sanity we will have to await a scholarly update to Himmelsbach's book that soberly covers Cooper, the copycats, the implications, and so on to avoid OR issues raised by Indy Beetle from potentially stitching a narrative together from local news articles that happen to mention Cooper. I will attempt to clean up the final issues that Sandy raised from her check though to leave the article in an approachable state, though. SnowFire (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: this is abusive; can we please shut this down? I raised just yesterday (see my post at 01:18, 2 March 2022) that Snowfire had removed a non-reliable source, and merged all of the remaining text under one reliable source, which did not support the text. Upon rechecking tonight, the same continues. In this edit, Snowfire removes a non-reliable source, leaving the entire paragraph cited to one reliable source. The source does not verify the content of the entire paragraph. I don't believe Snowfire should be editing this article. At. All. Also, this from Nikkimaria; page numbers cited are not adding up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started checking Gray, a heavily used source, and stopped after finding that most of what is cited to Gray in the first few I checked is simply not there. I stopped after only partial checking. I also located multiple other FBI pages that also don't verify the content cited to the FBI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And, the unverified content from Gray was not in the FAC-promoted version. According to the "Who Wrote That" tool, a good deal of the unverified content was added in 2011 by DoctorJoeE (who is still editing the article). We can't get there from here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry I set you off this badly, but I do not agree with your accusation here - this is a clash of editing styles, not me attempting to sabotage the article (I was agreeing with you that particular source should be removed and removing it sooner rather than later, and I considered the "has remained unchanged" part as obvious enough that it did not require a citation, not saying that was in the FBI website - the description was made very shortly after the hijacking and the FBI was still using it later. But maybe that makes that fact trivial.). It's unfortunate that the Grey NY article matches poorly with its current use though (I had mostly only looked through Grey's book when I was attempting to reinforce the article - which sadly didn't help that much, it's not a great book). I'm willing to look into Nikkimaria's page number tags if desired, but I'll step back from editing the article if you'd rather and see if someone else is willing to give it fresh eyes. (And I kind of presumed that the FARC would be obviously closed as demote anyway?) SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add on to this - I did miss that "close-set piercing" wasn't in the FBI website, and I absolutely would have removed it had I noticed, but this claim wasn't in the removed "enigma" source either (which just quoted the FBI website without attribution instead). That phrase being unsupported by citation wasn't changed by my edit at all - and the FBI source I moved did verify the parts that the "enigma" reference had verified before. It was just a source switch-out for a more reliable source that said the exact same information, nothing more, nothing less - it wasn't a deep citation verification that 100% of the content nearby went to the FBI source, too. I'm sorry that it was taken the wrong way. SnowFire (talk) 07:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point it's clear this article has some significant verifiability issues, and that significant work will be required to resolve those. On that basis I'm going to close this. Anyone can of course look at addressing the concerns/tags listed outside of this process, if interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:24, 3 March 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.