Wikipedia:Featured article review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page by any nominator is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks.
  2. No more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviewsEdit

Chagas diseaseEdit

Notified: WT:MED, WT:WP Brazil, WT:WP Argentina and WT:WP Venezuela

This FA is a 2005 promotion that has not been kept up to date. The original nominator, Redux is not currently active and has not edited the article since 2005. The top contributor, DO11.10 has not edited it since 2011. The second contributor, Doc James has not made any significant edits recently.[1] A list of updates needed was posted a month ago; significant portions of the article are out of date, and there is uncited text. A number of the sources used are quite old, dating to when the articles passed FAC in 2005. (see WP:MEDRS). Hopefully the WT:MED notification will result in getting this article cited, updated, and cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

Note that I am involved in the current WikiCup, but come here from a notice posted to WP Venezuela as a relevant article.

It may not be an area I know a lot about, but when I read the article after seeing the FAR notice I saw that it is quite short and leaves me wanting for details, though it seems to be a disease about which a lot is known. This may be an issue with accurately expanding on detail, particularly in the latter sections, which have noticeably not been updated in at least 2 years. This seems to be the first issue I can find, before going into medical aspects. A good improvement should probably begin with expansion. I’ll hopefully come back with some MOS for medical articles comments. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Doc James

No concerns with the FA status being removed if that is what people wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

So WP:WikiProject_Medicine are officially abandoning their FAs now? I know more about the parasite than the disease so without input from the said project, I would not feel fully competent helping here. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel like, between us, we could update this article, and are competent to do so, but I'm wondering if the effort is worth it, considering WP:MED does appear to be abandoning its FAs. I am increasingly feeling like I am the only editor left who is watching over and maintaining quite a few of the medical FAs, and I can't keep up. There appears to be little concern that almost all of the FAs (and probably GAs as well) are outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have the time and energy right now to hopefully bring one article up to featured status (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]), and after that I hope to keep another at featured status (dengue fever). While I do have a wish list of of other articles I'd like to massively improve, I agree with you Sandy, I think we have a severe labor shortage when it comes to this task. If somehow expediting the delisting of some medical featured articles and good articles (perhaps by invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) more accurately represents our content and helps us know which articles we should keep an eye on to maintain their *actual* quality (and also makes you feel better about this task), I would support it. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I've long thought that a careful eye towards this issue was deserved. If there's something you'd like some help with (like suggesting I review a featured article to research and see if I think it should be delisted), feel free to ask. Currently though I do want my primary focus to remain on updating the good article DVT, which needs more attention in the treatment, pathophysiology, prevention, and history sections in particular. But yes, I do want the medical articles that are marked as featured or good to be accurately designated. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy to hear someone else is watching and concerned :) Thanks, Biosthmors. Considering the shape of WP:MED's FAs, I shudder to think of the quality of the GAs, but I rarely involve myself at GA, since they amount to little more than one editor's opinion so that assessment isn't very meaningful. (Same applies to B-class.) As to helping on the FAs, I can only nominate one every two weeks, four max on the page at a time. What would be helpful in speeding things up, considering it is evident no one plans to work on them, is for others to nominate per the FAR instructions any FA that has already been notified on talk. Those are found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The Adventures of TintinEdit

Notified: User:Prhartcom, WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Comics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for unsourced statements for over 2 years, and has paragraphs of uncited text. The prose includes short, stubby paragraphs and concerns about the reliability of sources were raised on the talk page over 3 and a half years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Barkeep49Edit

I would agree with the concerns expressed by DrKay. While I might be able to do some work on fixing the prose, I will not be able to do the work necessary to really address the issues with text citation and agree it falls below our FA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PdebeeEdit

I have a lot of sources (in French), and could certainly assist other editors who raise issues to resolve, and/or to be corroborated by reliable sources. I’ll watch this page and participate where I can.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 13:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


Notified: Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Pokémon

I am nominating this featured article for review because the information that was contained on this page when it was submitted for featured article status was not substantially correct and was in part based on information that did not appear in cited sources, and attempts to improve it since in a way that adds content (as opposed to simply removing incorrect content) have failed due to a lack of reliable sources that could be used to correct it and a lack of any indication that new ones will appear in the future. That is, it is not comprehensive and cannot be. Blah2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Reading the talk page for MissingNo. this seems like content dispute issue, which has not been through standard dispute resolution channels; FAR should not be used for DR. --Masem (t) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm misreading what Blah2 means, I interpret it as they are saying the article cannot be made comprehensive due to a lack of reliable sources. So that would be a good reason for FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Between this and the talk page, the issue appears to be that there's "facts" about MissingNo that "gamers" know about, but not at all documented in any type of RS. We can't add information that's not from RS, even if its presumed its correct information. So thus the question is if the article remains comprehensive without these, and I'm not seeing major gaps for what I'd expect of a character article to contain, even for a character as unusual as this. --Masem (t) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's exactly it: common 'gamer knowledge' is that the entries that spawn MissingNo. were taken up by actual Pokemon in the beta version of the game, but the sources that are often cited for that information are wikis like Bulbapedia or require WP:OR. The Yellow 'version' of this glitch is also at times brought up by other editors, but outside of the name and role as an error handler if the game tries to spawn a pokemon that isn't there requires a completely different method with completely different results and isn't covered in notable sources, making it fall somewhat outside of the scope of this article. Am I about right Blah2?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think part of it is more that the article used to go into more detail when it became featured, but I later discovered that wasn't actually in the sources that were supposed to contain it, and I am assuming the existence of that detail contributed to the article receiving featured status. Personally I don't believe that there is even original research to back up the idea that we can know what was in the MissingNo. slots and I am not concerned with that at all. Blah2 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But it actually hasn't shrunk in size Blah. Additional sources can be added to give more bulk (it went to FA almost ten years ago, and sources like the below mentioned Ars Technica article exist), but I'm not quite seeing why you seem to have a bias against it being FA on the current grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If this article is moved out of FA, then it can become a GAN. Still, article talk page says:
"The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The Mythos and Meaning Behind Pokemon's Most Famous Glitch"
Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (modified 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
Keep from Lee Vilenski

Be aware, I may claim participation credits towards the Wikicup. Or maybe not? Who knows.

There's a few things here. I'd say there is a lack of inline citations in some key areas, there is a real lack of the lede on this item.

Specific issues
  • Citation 18 - "[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite". Journal of Open Source Software. January 26, 2018. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch" - was this a joke by someone? Is this item even something that we should be citing?
  • Quite a few of the refs use "staff" as an author - should we be using this in place of no known author?

Additional comments to come. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

See the FAR instructions; pages are not segmented, and Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. Perhaps you meant to suggest this FAR should be closed without a FARC. (And without a subhead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - conflict with Masem - I hadn't read the talk page for this one. I'd suggest there is at least some benefits to looking at specific issues (content dispute notwithstanding) on an FAR. However, quite happy to have this close if it's a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Citation 18 and that whole line, looks like it got snuck in between edits and really has no relevance to anything. As for the others it was my understanding during the FAN that Staff was acceptable if the source website/publication was considered reliable but no writer was directly attributed to the article? As for the lead length I remember that was a point of recurring discussion during the FAN where just exactly what to include given the size of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Realistically, if we don't have an author, we should leave it blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been my understanding through several FAC's that leaving it blank entirely is frowned upon, and in the cases of some templates will cause it to show an error instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and increases the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128" could we expand this? Something about "MissingNo. causes graphical and gameplay changes. When encountering MissingNo. in Red and Blue, graphical anomalies occur as well as an increase in the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Attempted to work some of that in, and expand some of the sentences out with information added through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Any reasons for the citations in the lede? Surely we can put this information in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Outside of the lede, the actual games this appears in isn't mention at all! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It was at one point, I think with subequent edits over the years it got accidentally removed when people kept trying to cite wikis as evidence of its presence in Pokemon Yellow, even though that glitch is related only by name and is non-notable in terms of sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A little surprised there is no info on other glitches in the series, or even other glitched Pokémon etc. [2], [3] etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Because they don't fall into the scope of the article, and don't have a lot of notability in outside sources or even the same cultural examination/impact. It would be like an article on the Minus World talking about screenwarp glitches for Super Mario Bros.: they're related to one another, but one has cultural impact over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the above fixes/comments are enough for me to support remaining at FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what this is saying please disentangle it?

Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical anomalies and gameplay changes, specifically increasing the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128. The latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines, though with words of caution about the former.

Latter= gameplay changes? Former = graphical anomalies? Even if the sentences are re-cast, I have no idea what the lead is saying, and the lead should be digestible to non-gamers. The promoted version was only slightly better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, better, now what is a "sixth item"? It is mention in the lead but never defined.
Is this still true? (It needs an "as of" date.) "Despite Nintendo's statements on the glitch, it has not been removed from re-releases of the games, such as on their virtual console service.[6]"
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Attempted to address the issues mentioned, bear with me I'm dealing with a bit of a flu right now so not 100%.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Take your time, get better, there is no rush at FAR. I still need to understand in the lead what the glitch is— what a sixth item is, what it means for it to be increased. The only part I get is 128 is a power of 2, so a likely programming error, but is that explained? Maybe Ealdgyth can lend some clarity here. That there is some very unusual, uncorrected glitch in this game is all I am getting as a non-gamer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

CM PunkEdit

Notified: Article talk 2020-01-28, WP Chicago, ‎WP Mixed martial arts, WP Professional wrestling, ‎WP Bio/Sports and games, User:Prefall

This FA was promoted in 2007, and the original writer has been gone for more than a decade. The article has fallen out of FA standards. There are numerous maintenance categories, a convoluted TOC, and a MOS review is needed. There are also queries on talk indicating the article is outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The preferred way of going about this, of course, would have been to inform the relevant project of your concerns before nominating it. I see that there was a note on the article talk page, but notifying the project would be a much more effective way to reach people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
See the WP:FAR instructions. More significantly, GaryColemanFan, are you aware of anyone willing and able to work on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikilink. I've read the page before. Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the TOC could easily be fixed by {{TOC|3}}. I'm not sure I understand the concerns that the original writer being inactive, that's quite common, no? Without reading through the talk page, could we get a small summary of exactly what MOS issues there are? From what I see: I'd like to remove citations from lede and infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE (can be sourced in professional wrestling persona section), as well as clean up the tagged [citation needed] note & potentially unreliable source. Other than that - the article needs some better paragraphing, and going through with a comb for duplinks. I don't think that would take all that long to do though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are willing to do all the other updates, I will go through and fix MOS issues once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I once saw that there was a talk page message listing a bunch of issues with the article, so when I noticed this pop up on the list of articles with FAR-related talk page notices, I went over to see what I could do. There were a few prose bugs that I was able to fix, but a good number of the past comments went completely over my head. You really need to know more about wrestling than I do to bring an article like this to the highest level possible, so I doubt I can help much. However, I am rooting for the article to receive the attention it needs to retain FA status. I'd suggest trying to resolve the tagged issues first, as most of the tags relate to an unreliable source, which is a no-no for an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Delist to Good Article - CM Punk is well known as wrestler and lot hyped wrestling fans like to edit this page due to big user base leaving issues on the page. Indeed it has failed WP:FACRITERIA. Regice2020 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Regice2020 please see the WP:FAR instructions. Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is where issues needing correction are identified and the article is hopefully improved. If the article is not improved, it moves to the FARC phase, where Keep or Delist is declared. Also, we don't re-assign GA status; that is a separate process. If an article is delisted FA, projects must reassess status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's unclear what needs to be done. There are a few "unreliable source" tags--almost all of these are used to cite unnecessary details. For example, if it can't be proven with a reliable source that he defended a title against Shad Gaspard, the article wouldn't suffer at all with the mention of Gaspard removed. There are edit requests on the talk page, but this the requested inclusions tend to be trivial or unreferenced (a list of famous friends, etc.). In the original post here, there is a reference to "numerous maintenance categories"--is this still an issue? If so, what categories? I see no problem with the ToC, so clarification would be appreciated here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for working on this GaryColemanFan. Almost an entire section is cited to an unreliable source, so that will need to be resolved. Perhaps, if no reliable source covered that issue, it is UNDUE; you might know better. Separately, I will look at the article overall and give a more comprehensive answer after sorting the next problem.
    Giants2008 mentions seeing a long list of problems with the article, which I went looking for in archives. I am unsure if he is referring to a previous FAR, which ARGGGH ... was deleted out of process rather than archived by the FAR Coords. Can the @WP:FAC coordinators: please use their adminly tools to resurrect whatever was deleted here, and post it to the talk page of this FAR so the rest of us can see it? Giants2008, is that what you were referring to, or is there something else we should be looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The thread that I saw was on the article's talk page, not on an FAR page, although it may actually be from the deleted FAR. It can be found here, if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, same thing I found, but that discussion links to an old FAR that was deleted. Perhaps some admin will tell us if there is other content in the deleted FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On the TOC, here is my attempt at removing extraneous wording and consolidating section, but as Giants2008 mentions, one really needs to understand professional wresting (and its manual of style, if there is one) to adequately address this. Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.) Please feel free to do/undo anything I've done on the TOC, as this was just my first stab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a vague memory of an improperly formed FAR that went nowhere, so that list might be everything. I can work through some of it, although I don't watch wrestling, so I can't be much help outside of grammatical fixes. If the unreliable source you are referring to is WWFOldSchool (the one tagged as unreliable), most of it could go. I think two of the points may be worth keeping with a different source (although some of the remaining information would need to be trimmed--for example, I'm sure we could find a source for losing the tag team belts, but not for losing the tag team belts while injured). As for the persona section, I won't bore you with my ranting, but I think any fixes would be best handled by someone who doesn't view the section as a clunky, dense, trivial, reader-hostile eyesore. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a problem for many of us; I can't tell what is trivia relative to what is important in this topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I can try. I'm not familiar with the FA process and English isn't my first language. But I can try some thing. For example, I removed Hardcore holly and Matt Striker 2007 feuds. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would like to make the article more user-friendly to no-wrestling fans. Remove some in-universe stuff, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand what changes you are making because you don't use edit summaries. This makes it difficult to follow the article's progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later, no answers on my TOC queries, unreliable sources and maintenance tags still present, no recent edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

George B. McClellanEdit

Notified: WikiProject Military history

I am nominating this featured article for review because, since its promotion in 2007, the article has atrophied somewhat, but more importantly, it doesn't hold up to today's Featured Article standards. The sources are rather condensed into a few (the first half is essentially from one book), and some POV has crept in. The main article writer has since retired so the likelihood of the article improving again is slim. Wizardman 04:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

  • To repeat my comments during the pre-FAR discussion on the article's talk page, the article is pushing what I believe is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that McClellan was a successful general who was wrongly sacked. Everything I've read on the topic (which is a fair amount, with a focus on the standard works on the US Civil War and Lincoln's relationship with his generals) has concluded that McClellan was a failure as a battlefield commander and Lincoln should have sacked him much earlier. My edits to remove POV pushing from the lead [4] illustrate this issue, but similar material crops up in the body of the article. I'd also note that the article devotes too little attention to McClellan's presidential campaign (and I believe that the claim that he would have continued the war if elected is incorrect or at least needs further explanation) and his term as the governor of New Jersey. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • To summarise the entry in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History, McClellan possessed "caution bordering on paralysis" and "totally lacked the killer instinct". It also states that Lee met him on unequal terms at Antietam because he had such contempt for him as a commander. On the positive side, it indicates that McClellan showed a skill in retreat during the Seven Days battles, and that he re-organised the Army of the Potomac and restored its confidence after First Bull Run. It's a tertiary source, but the general thrust of it should be reflected in our article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, in addition to the above points, I'd add that there are many areas of the article that appear unreferenced. For retention of FA status, I would suggest that it should have at least a citation at the end of each paragraph in the body, and after every quote. The citation banner/tag in the Battle of Antietam sub section will need to be rectified too, if possible. The duplicate link checker indicates that there are potentially quite a few terms that are overlinked, although some of them may be ok. I'd also suggest that the placement of images could be improved. In a couple of places (on my screen at least) the text seems to be sandwiched between several images. I'd help with the referencing if I could, but unfortunately this isn't a topic I know much about, nor do I have any sources on the Civil War on my bookshelves, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just pinging a few Milhist editors that might be able to help and have an interest in the ACW, @GELongstreet, Djmaschek, Kges1901, and BusterD:. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid the American Civil War is outside my area of expertise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think there are two "jobs" here. Firstly, fixing the content and correcting the POV stuff. Once that is done, fixing the MOS, image licensing, a copy-edit, etc. For this FAR to have any chance of bringing the article up to FA standard, one or more editors need to put their hand up for the first job. To do it they will need some knowledge and expertise regarding the ACW in general, and access to the relevant sources. Unfortunately, that isn't me. I am happy to do the second job if someone can be found to do the first one, but the first one needs to be done before the second one starts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also happy to help on the second, always, but first someone has to do the first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I have the library and the knowledge to tackle this one. However, I shudder at the size of the task, so I will not promise anything. Please note that all authors that I have read are critical of McClellan. He was a very able organizer and strategist, but he seems to have convinced himself that he was always outnumbered (it was the other way around), which made him very cautious. President Lincoln once remarked about McClellan, "He's got the slows." Djmaschek (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Djmaschek. Having at least one ACW specialist would make a big difference. I suggest focussing on the areas identified above, a section at a time. Anything I can do to help, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later and no article edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving straight to a FARC discussion per the above. It would be a major project to return this article to FA status, and no-one seems to be in a position to take it on at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

2005 Atlantic hurricane seasonEdit

Notified:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it no longer meets the criteria of what a featured article is, especially in this project. The standards have significantly increased over the years and this article has sadly not kept up with the times. @JavaHurricane: posted about the article not meeting the standards on January 13 and there have been no comments so I am coming here. My main issues:

  • A citation needed tag for an entire paragraph
  • This is by far the largest issue... The article by far is not comprehensive in its coverage of storms. I understand this was literally the most active Atlantic season on record in terms of storms, but one sentence for a storm is not acceptable. Many smaller storms have virtually no information on them. Even the larger ones dont have enough. Not to mention there isn't much meteorology for individual storms. There is a list of storms for this season, but I dont see why it is needed considering the shape the main article is in at this point. If Pacific typhoon articles can contain even more storms, this should be able to have all the season's content. The storm sections need to be completely overhauled to conform to today's format. NoahTalk 04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Noah! Another thing that I think should be done is that the lead and summary should be completely rewritten as the current versions are not up to the mark. A lot of the information is irrelevant or hyped up. Also, for the time being, the FA List-classification for the list of storms should be removed as that list is in a worse state. -- JavaHurricane 05:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson
This is just for the lead.

  • Per MOS:LEAD, a lead paragraph should generally have no more than four paragraphs, and I fail to see how this should be an exception\
  • the U.S. states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes; Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Tamaulipas were each struck once and brushed by at least one more is an example of inconsistent use of "the U.S. states..."; why is it used the first time but not the second, and shouldn't Tamaulipas be referred to as "the Mexican state of Tamaulipas", for consistency?
  • The 2005 season was the first to observe more tropical storms and cyclones in the Atlantic than in the West Pacific; on average, the latter experiences 26 tropical storms per year while the Atlantic only averages 12. This event was repeated in the 2010 season; however, the 2010 typhoon season broke the record for the fewest storms observed in a single year, while the 2005 typhoon season featured near-average activity. None of this is cited, nor is it brought up in the body.
  • The season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, although it effectively persisted into January 2006 due to continued storm activity. While one could argue that the body backs up the last part of this with Zeta, none of the other stuff is cited. Perhaps every hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and/or ends on November 30, but this should be explicitly mentioned and cited.
  • The records section references a part of the body which is inadequately cited and fleshed out, IMO.

John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Before you all waste your time, see my conversation with Hink here. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would probably support a merger of the various articles per Yellow Evan's talk page. However, this may or may not be the right place for that. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 07:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the place for that. If content from an FA is merged, the FA goes away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, support merger. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger of all four articles. NoahTalk 17:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hurricane Noah, what four articles? FAR deals with Featured articles. If there are other Featured articles, a FAR needs to be opened on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying: the proposal is to merge the contents of four non-Featured articles into this Featured article. This means the (new) content in this Featured article would need to be reviewed to see if it still meets FAC standards, if the merge happens.

Conversely, the implication above is that this article is not currently at standard unless the merge happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes... that would be our job here. We would provide featured article reviews to fix issues and ensure that it meets FA at the end of this process. NoahTalk 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the plan of merging the season list article, statistics, and the two minor storm articles, while making sure that the article would still be up to featured article standards. There is currently a draft article, which I realize now is going to be a giant history merge, so much so that I'd suggest a redirect rather than doing a history merge once it is done, and leave the notice on the 2005 talk page. Still, that is where the users plan on incorporating the changes, given that the article is featured, and so is the list article). See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Why is an FLRC necessary when there is a consensus for a merge? I don't recall one taking place with similar mergers in the past. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bookkeeping mechanism for the featured list which will go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess it needs something to link to on the article milestones. That's why the FLRC is needed, even if just for bookkeeping. NoahTalk 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support merger of the four aforementioned articles (storm list, statistics, Franklin, Philippe). Storm sections in the draft article need to be fleshed out more, particularly Maria, Nate, Philippe (merger should help for this one), Vince, Alpha, and Beta. I suppose most of the records from the statistics article will go into the seasonal summary or the storm sections themselves? Or maybe some could be moved over exclusively to List of Atlantic hurricane records instead to avoid bloating the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • This FAR is approaching the two-week mark; any progress on the Merger proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:12george1 and I are working on the new version of the article in a draft article. Franklin's content has been merged in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Closing with consensus to merge since there is unanimous support after two weeks. NoahTalk 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I would additionally like to propose the merge of the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article into the new draft article. What content exists on this system is largely trivial and could effectively be covered in the individual section on the main page. In accordance with the aforementioned pages both here and on Hurricanehink's talk page, I do not see that this article has kept with the increased project standards of today. Cooper 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Closing with no consensus to merge due to lack of participation in the last 8 days. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please advise when all is merged, and ready for review from others here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Please feel free to redirect the storm articles as soon you finish merging their contents. I removed the GA status from the articles as soon as we agreed to merge them since they were auto-negated by that consensus. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sicilian BaroqueEdit

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily, User:Giano, User:Bishonen, User:Tony1, User:Bunchofgrapes, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Attilios, User:jbmurray, User:Hoary

A note was left on the talk page in 2013 about lack of citations in lots of places. Looks like not much has changed since then. I just tagged specific paragraphs that need citations; there are probably more specific claims that also need referencing. There are also pervasive problems with tone, sometimes verging or becoming opinionated, so that's a problem with neutrality as well. Some commentators on the original nomination were upset when it passed, especially after the main contributor reverted a large number of edits from others. That undoing seems to have contributed greatly to its tone problems; it's unclear this should have been promoted in the first place. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The referencing is certainly 2005-style, but no very outrageous statements seem to be made. I don't agree that tone is a problem - the article is far better written and informed than most of our architecture FAs (unfortunately that's not saying all that much). Tony1 was cross with the nom, but that's not rare. It's 15 years since the FAC, and various editors have in fact worked on the prose quite a bit. A bit of time adding refs from a couple of the dozens of books on the subject would sort it. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Let the star go. Apparently, this needs reffing: “ Baroque characteristics, such as broken pediments over windows, the extravagant use of statuary, and curved topped windows and doors are all emblematic of Baroque architecture, and can all be found on Baroque buildings all over Europe.[citation needed]” I don’t think even the best architectural text books reference the obvious. Giano (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Well, the more basic ones do. Baroque for Dummies or something. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
The content is great but we've got a lot more anal about sourcing since 2005. I tried to help it about 7 years back but it's not the best of ideas to try to patch up something not knowing all of the original sources used to write it. It looks to me like it could be salvaged and worked on in a sandbox and Giano update it but if he's not motivated to do it I can hardly blame him!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Let it loose the star, and I will ref it when I get back to London and my books, I doubt I used anything online back then (I still think online sources are rather dubious). It’s hardly a widely understood subject anyway, so I doubt there will be anything much online. However, I doubt even Anthony Blunt, the chief source, felt it necessary to tell us that curves and statuary are symbolic of Baroque buildings. I have lived and breathed Sicilian Baroque since I was a child, I will sort it out when I have time. In the meantime, just demote it. Giano (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

To further article improvement, here are some phrases that seem rough to me, in the intro and Characteristics section:

  • "came to fruition" - probably the wrong phrasing; this implies this style was a goal being worked towards
  • "in a naïve and parochial manner" - a negative opinion
  • "developed a confidence" - it seems dubious architects were actually afraid of anything; maybe this means to say the style became bolder or more pronounced?
  • "barely fifty years" - negative connotation; "nearly fifty years" would be more neutral
  • "theatrical" - confusing; what does it mean for architecture to be "theatrical" given that buildings don't move or speak?
  • "heavy-handed pastiches " - negative opinion
  • "coupled with a unique freedom of design that is more difficult to characterise in words" - could say "combined with unique and creative designs" or just not say anything (either express it in words or pictures, but don't bother complaining about the difficulty of doing so)
  • "accentuating the Baroque love of light and shade" - rock could express or manifest a love of light and shade, but love is invisible and can't be accentuated visually

-- Beland (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I think you are being very pedantic. I’m sorry you can’t see what is theatrical about Baroque architecture - that some of its greatest architects were also set-designers is perhaps a clue. As for negative opinion, you don’t have to worry: a building doesn’t need its appraisals and faults to be couched in positivitE criticism. It doesn’t have any self-confidence to destroy. As a for came to fruition, fruit is the completion of a process beyond which it doesn’t go any further, eg it is ended. as for love of light and shade, I could have used the word Chiaroscuro, but would the intelligent 14-year-old, for whom we are writing understand it, having to keep clicking away from a page is distracting and he’ll loose interest. You obviously have never heard of the architectural trick, so perhaps we should replace that. Anyhow, I keep saying take the star away, so unless there is anyone else here who understands the minutiae of detail which makes Sicilian Baroque differ from Baroque elsewhere, just get on and remove it. Giano (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • By our 2020 FA standard, it lacks citations. But it is:
1(a) (very) well written;
1(b) comprehensive, neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context;
1(c) well-researched - it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate (see above);
1(d) neutral - I don't share the FAR nominator's concerns on this point;
1(e) stable;
2(a) provided with a concise lead;
2(b) structured appropriately;
2(c) consistently cited;
3 provided with images and other media, in abundance, well-illustrating the points made;
4 focussed.
Thus, as others above have said, it's a citations issue, to bring the article in line with current standards. I should be pleased to assist in addressing this, if the FAR nominator will give time and space to do so. The main editor has also clearly indicated their willingness to do this. I would add that, for an editor with some knowledge of certain architectural styles but with no previous appreciation of the Sicilian Baroque, this article is both extremely informative and a great pleasure to read. I learnt a lot, which I think is what we're really about. KJP1 (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
There is always time and space at FAR ... only need to demonstrate ongoing progress. KJP1 if you are going to be adding citations, just keep the Coords here updated on your progress, and we should be able to retain the star on Giano's fine work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia - appreciated. As I mentioned on the article talkpage, the major sources are rare/out-of-print/very expensive, or a combination of all three! But I am confident that the libraries I can access will be able to assist. I shall certainly keep all interested parties updated, and I am hopeful Giano will also return to the page when they can. KJP1 (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I've also been adding bits, and there discussion on going on the article talk. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Note to Coordinators - Johnbod, Giano and I have been working on the cites - now doubled since the FAR nomination. We’re very confident that 2020 citation standards can be met, and would ask for some time to complete this. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's fine - articles have sat at FAR for months if the coordinators feel that active work is taking place on them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I just did some minor MOS-y stuff,[5] and there has been good progress; a bit more citation work to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Per Sandy's update, the citing is progressing. There are a few remaining CN tags, five in total at my, possibly inaccurate count, that need attention, particularly in the Church and Palazzi Interiors sections; and a number of paragraphs that would benefit from concluding cites, notably in the Early Sicilian Baroque section; but we now have the main sources readily available, so will be looking to address these in the next few days. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The progress is now such that a move to FARC should not be necessary; the article is cited, and MOS issues mostly resolved. I was earlier concerned about a large amount of text sandwiched between images, and see only one remaining instance (Palazzi interiors). 'Tis not for me to question any of Giano's prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I would Support Sandy’s view, here. I believe that citation to 2020 standards has been achieved. We’ve moved from 49 to 144 cites and there are no outstanding [citation needed] tags. The prose, and illustrations, were, and remain, of the highest standards. KJP1 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think enough has been done here. Thanks to all who joined in! Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Eccellente! -- Beland (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Beland, who initiated the FAR is on board: Close without FARC. Kudos to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

L. Ron HubbardEdit

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:
  • What citations do you think are missing?
  • Which do you think are unreliable?
  • What are the weasel words?
  • Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?
Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [6]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.
Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The problematic sources are listed at the FAC, with good reasoning provided.
From the FAC
  • Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position.

We need to look at specific text cited to these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's about time to deal with Frenschkowski. His criticism of Miller is brief, vague and wrong. Frenschkowski states two specific points of criticism. The first is that Hubbard's assertions about his military career "have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". That is quite wrong. I spent a year going through Hubbard's records to write a book on his military career, checked them with other material that Frenschkowski didn't have (because it hadn't been published then), and found not only that Miller had got it right but that he had actually understated the degree to which Hubbard made a mess of his military career. Frenschkowski is a theologian, not a military historian, and has no expertise in that area. He cannot be relied on as an authority on military history.
The other criticism that Frenschkowski states is that "Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander [sic] Thompson". Yet Miller does not dispute Hubbard's statements. He only states (on page 25 of my 1987 edition) that "the Commander remains an enigma. He cannot be identified from US Navy records, nor can his relationship with Freud be established. Doctor Kurt Eissler, one of the world's leading authorities on Freud, says he has no knowledge of any correspondence or contact of any kind between Freud and Thompson." Miller states the limits of his knowledge; he doesn't anywhere reject the existence of Thompson. Subsequent researchers found more evidence of Thompson, who is discussed over 3 pages in Larry Wright's Going Clear. That's a perfect example of researchers building on each other's work – Miller identified a gap in knowledge that Wright was able to fill.
And that is it. Frenschkowski states no further criticisms of Miller's accuracy, nor does any other non-Scientologist publication that I'm aware of criticise Miller on the points that Frenschkowski raises. From my point of view, this is a very inadequate basis to imply that Miller's entire work is unreliable and needs to be reviewed. By the way, I contacted Frenschkowski during my research for my book to ask him: "I have been unable to find anything in [Hubbard's records] that contradicts Miller's assertions. Could you possibly clarify which records you refer to in your essay?". He declined to respond. If he is not interested in defending his own work I don't see why it is worth your while to do so.
I also have no idea what "our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that" is supposed to mean; it's unintelligible. Can you please clarify? Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is any progress happening here? I see no edits.

There is still a citation needed tag, the Daily Mail (deprecated) is used as a source, and there are duplicate citations (... unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.[165][166][165]) Why does a direct quote need three citations (The idea may not have been new; Hubbard has been quoted as telling a science fiction convention in 1948: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[140][172][173]) A good amount of the excessive size could be minimized by dealing with the excessive quoting throughout the article. There is an excess of images that add little to the article. Overuse of however abounds. In the lead, "1952, Hubbard lost the rights to Dianetics in bankruptcy proceedings, and he subsequently founded Scientology." What is that subsequently about; how are the two related? Several issues of problematic "subsequently" (sample, "he was arrested in San Luis Obispo, California, and subsequently pleaded guilty" ... unlike he would plead guilty before he was arrested). The article is tediously overquoted (the red hair, green eyes quote from Parsons gives a sample of the level of unnecessary quoted detail throughout) and does not appropriately use summary style to the many sub-articles available, which could be used to reduce the tedious detail. As an example, since there is a sub-article on his military career, why do we need to know in this article when a ship was commissioned? WP:DASHes need attention, as does WP:OVERLINKing (miscarriage as one sample, New York City, World War I, it goes on). Poor writing exemplified in the first paragraph, which tells us in the first sentence that he was the founder of Scientology and two sentences later that he subsequently (ugh) founded scientology. Here is the clean TOC at promotion, for contrast with the rambling long section names now. The same diff shows the deterioration in the lead.

If anyone is working on this article, they should get busy, and we should ask Ealdgyth to look at the sources, and Mike Christie to perhaps weigh in on the magazine sections. If not, move to FARC; this has already been here six weeks, and it's in rather bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The section that covers the material I'm knowledgeable about is this one. I've had a look through and fixed one minor error, and added a couple of links. A couple of comments about that section:
  • I'd cut 'Science fiction newsletter Xignals reported that Hubbard wrote "over 100,000 words a month" during his peak. Martin Gardner asserted that his writing "[wa]s done at lightning speed."'; I don't know Xignals but doubt it's a reliable source for this, and Gardner's comment won't be from first hand knowledge, but taken from other sources. Both are from, which I'm not familiar with -- is it an RS? SFE3, which is an RS, has an article on Hubbard which mentions that his writing of this era was "composed with delirious speed"; that would be a better source if we want to reinsert a mention.
  • I'm not sure about the assertion, cited to Stableford, that Hubbard was taken under Campbell's wing; Stableford is a respectable source, and I wouldn't oppose at FAC over something like this, but Hubbard's success as a writer predates his involvement with Campbell, and per SFE3 he was not one of the writers who, under Campbell, helped redefine sf's conventions in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It would be worth looking at other sources to see if Stableford's comment is a minority view. For contrast, there's no question that some writers (Isaac Asimov for example) benefited very much from Campbell's tutelage; I haven't heard that Hubbard was one of them.
  • The source given for Buckskin Brigades doesn't support it being Hubbard's first novel; our article on the book has other sources that might work.
  • The point about Hubbard being short of money is made twice, at different points in the section; one refers to Maryland and the other to Washington, but both refer to 1936 so it would make sense to combine the two points.
  • The last two sentences seem disconnected and look as though they were dropped in without attempting to integrate them.
Generally the material in this section matches what I know about this part of Hubbard's career. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, zero edits since comments on 15 February from Mike Christie and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

P. K. van der BylEdit

Notified:WikiProject Zimbabwe

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because this was promoted back in 2006 by a user who's long gone, and more importantly had issues brought up on the talk page back in 2016 which are still valid and were recently brought up again by SandyGeorgia. The prose seems a bit off, and more importantly on my end many of the references are improperly formatted (Meredith in particular comes to mind), lacking names and thus entailing duplicates as well as (I stand corrected on this matter after reviewing the source code more) not being templated when they should be. There are also quite a few uncited paragraphs, so altogether this struggles quite a lot with criteria 1c and 2c, not to mention the others that might pop up. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 17:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation templates are not required; consistency in citation formatting is, by whatever means that is accomplished.
The main issue here is uncited text; if someone is willing or able to address that, I will review other items that need correction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough on templating. Nevertheless, some of the refs are incomplete regardless; I would not know to which work "Meredith" refers were it not for the incomplete footnote #59, for example. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Approaching the two-week mark without a single edit or response; Move to FARC. Main concern is lack of citations, MOS review also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Sources include ""; tagged for citation needed since January 2020. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Nothing happening here, and no indication anyone is willing to take it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per all, this seems like a piece of work whose work hasn't been happening. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Besides prose concerns the refs have the following issues: "Citations needed" - tagged for a month w/no improvements; 2 refs; apparent usage of a Wikipedia List as a ref (After being demobilised, Van der Byl studied law at Pembroke College, Cambridge<ref name="list">List of Members of Cambridge University</ref>); unreliable ref used twice - "Who's Who of South Africa"; Ref #72 to ITN fails verification; Ref #57 goes to a general Google.Co.UK Books results page; a mish-mash of hugely different referencing styles; links to website, a possibly unreliable source (seems to be a partisan blog/source that hasn't been updated in 3 years); etc., etc. Even though the article has 87 references and is quite sizeable at a 176kb File size/36 kB "readable prose size" , I am not certain that in its present state it would pass a WP:GAN... Shearonink (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndromeEdit

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

  • I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
  • Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
  • The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
  • The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.
Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.
The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like ICD-11 is going to rename Asperger syndrome to "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language". Nevertheless, this is too cumbersome and "Asperger syndrome" is likely to remain the de facto name.
A number of sources are aging, notably these heavily-cited sources: Asperger syndrome fact sheet (2007), McPartland (2006), Baskin (2006), Woodbury-Smith (2009), Klin (2006) and Foster (2003).
While I suspect that the relevance of these older sources hasn't changed much, the article would really benefit from the scrutiny of an editor interested in Asperger syndrome, to go through it and update the sourcing as much as possible. (I realise that SandyGeorgia has already tried to find a suitable editor.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Concerns raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, with a daily average of more than 10,000 hits, is among the medicine project's most popular pages, and yet no one at that project appears willing or able to undertake to update this article, which will fall into complete disrepair if it is defeatured. In the almost month since the FAR talk page notice was given, there have been two edits by John M Wolfson, and four edits by Axl; not even a minimum attempt by medicine project members to update.

  • The problems with comprehensiveness and the need for an update are outlined on talk and on this FAR page, and updating the article would actually not be at all difficult, and yet, no one appears willing to take on the work. I am unable and uninterested in continuing to maintain this article, as working on the body of the article with a dreadful lead that does not reflect best practice for Featured articles holds no interest for me. Considering that most readers will not get past the lead, it should be a compelling and well written introduction to the subject; it is not.
    Examining the short, choppy, outdated, and overcited lead:
  • This is a basic definition, unlikely to be challenged, and does not require citation in the lead. The article is written in American English, but the first sentence has British English. Right up front, we should be telling the reader this is a sub-type of ASD. Forcing leads to a specific order (not in compliance with any guideline or policy) forces critical information to a later paragraph in the lead, unnecessarily. Right up front, we should be telling our readers that AS isn't what it once was: now it's a sub-type.
  • Because of the changing status of this diagnosis, it is helpful to cite this text, and yet, the text does not give the reader the information they need to know right up front. AS is a "disorder of uncertain validity", and the source does not characterize AS as "milder", it correctly states that AS "differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development". That doesn't make it "milder", just different. Nor does the source say that language development and intelligence are "relatively normal"; it says there is no general delay or retardation. The attempt to shorten this concept has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Rather than using a 2015 source, the text could be more accurately updated to reflect PMID 29167722, which states that effects on cognitive abilities need to be better researched. When recent sources tell us the condition is "characterized by major problems in social and nonverbal communication", the word "milder" seems inappropriate. The word "high functioning" (used in sources) seems better; dumbing down language results in loss of precision. (While I'm on that source, the article does not mention "One of the main problems in diagnosis of autism and AS is the late occurrence of some atypical behavioral and cognitive changes, like impairment of social communication or alteration in occurrence of puberty" and the importance of recognizing this for diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the article mention the high comorbidity with ADHD, or the high rate of schizophrenia among relatives, or the rate of bipolar.) PMID 30736970 states that "cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions".
  • Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common.[3][4] Signs usually begin before two years of age and typically last for a person's entire life.[1]
  • Even with the new categorization of AS, this statement is not in doubt and does not need to be cited.
  • The exact cause of Asperger's is unknown.[1]
  • This is not likely to be challenged, is common fact, and does not need to be cited in the lead. Overcitation of basic factoids results in choppy prose, where these three sentences on cause could be better combined, with one citation.
  • Citing this information is useful, but citations should be updated. We are using a 2006 source to say genetics have not been determined.
  • Should be mentioned early on. "People with these symptoms" refers back to ... what in this paragraph? That AS was removed from DSM is basic fact; not likely to be challenged, does not require citation.
  • There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.[3]
  • Limited data supporting interventions cited to a 2006 source ?
  • Treatment is aimed at lowering obsessive or repetitive routines, and improving communication skills and physical clumsiness.[9] Interventions may include social skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, parent training, and medications for associated problems, such as mood or anxiety.[9]
  • This is the first time the reader encounters the word obsessive, but it is unlinked, leaving confusion about possible OCD comorbidity versus OC traits; what exactly do we mean here? We are citing all of this to a 2007 source; nothing new since 2007?
  • Most children improve as they grow up, but social and communication difficulties usually persist.[10]
  • We are citing "most improve" to a 2009 source; still true?
  • Some researchers and people on the autism spectrum have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that autism spectrum disorder is a difference rather than a disease that must be treated or cured.[11][12]
  • This is cited to extremely old sources, and what does it have to do with the paragraph it is placed in ?
  • In 2015, Asperger's was estimated to affect 37.2 million people globally.[13]
  • No problem (although I am unsure if this data is current). (Noting here the absence of an WP:NBSP, and that a MOS review is needed throughout.)
  • Autism spectrum disorder affects males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age.[14][15]
  • Standard stuff, does not require citation. How much more often, and how much later? It should not be hard to provide a few simple numbers here, using updated sources. (Noting while here that the citation does not use the same style used throughout the article, and that a check for consistent citation style throughout is needed.)
  • Unlikely to be challenged, does not require citation.
  • The modern conception of Asperger syndrome came into existence in 1981 and went through a period of popularization.[17][18][19]
  • Holy overcitation batman. All old sources, and not one of them reflects the current conception of AS, so the term "modern conception" is outdated.
  • Obvious, does not require citation, but needs to be merged with the outdated statement in the previous sentence. Forcing text to conform to specific citations, rather than writing an overall summary of the article, results in this kind of disconnect.
  • Many questions and controversies remain.[10]
  • This statement says absolutely nothing and the reader knows not to what it refers. This is the result of dumbing down and shortening sentences to the point of losing all meaning.
  • Places in the wrong spot, by forcing the lead to conform to a certain flow. This information belongs with the whole sub-type, recategorization of AS as part of ASD spectrum in the first paragraph, and it is not helpful to cite this to a 2006 source.
  • Partly because of this, the percentage of people affected is not firmly established.[3]
  • Dumbed down to the point of meaningless, and cited to a 2006 source.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  1. ^ a b c d e "Autism Spectrum Disorder". National Institute of Mental Health. September 2015. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
  2. ^ "F84.5 Asperger syndrome". World Health Organization. 2015. Archived from the original on 2 November 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  3. ^ a b c d e McPartland J, Klin A (October 2006). "Asperger's syndrome". Adolescent Medicine Clinics. 17 (3): 771–88, abstract xiii. doi:10.1016/j.admecli.2006.06.010 (inactive 2020-01-24). PMID 17030291.
  4. ^ Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Reviews in Neurological Diseases. 3 (1): 1–7. PMID 16596080.
  5. ^ Klauck SM (June 2006). "Genetics of autism spectrum disorder". European Journal of Human Genetics. 14 (6): 714–20. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201610. PMID 16721407.
  6. ^ "Autism Spectrum Disorder". National Institute of Mental Health. Archived from the original on 9 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
  7. ^ "Asperger syndrome". Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
  8. ^ "ICD-11". Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  9. ^ a b National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (31 July 2007). "Asperger syndrome fact sheet". Archived from the original on 21 August 2007. Retrieved 24 August 2007. NIH Publication No. 05-5624.
  10. ^ a b Woodbury-Smith MR, Volkmar FR (January 2009). "Asperger syndrome". European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (Submitted manuscript). 18 (1): 2–11. doi:10.1007/s00787-008-0701-0. PMID 18563474.
  11. ^ Clarke J, van Amerom G (2007). "'Surplus suffering': differences between organizational understandings of Asperger's syndrome and those people who claim the 'disorder'". Disability & Society. 22 (7): 761–76. doi:10.1080/09687590701659618.
  12. ^ Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger syndrome necessarily viewed as a disability?". Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl. 17 (3): 186–91. doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801. A preliminary, freely readable draft, with slightly different wording in the quoted text, is in: Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger's syndrome necessarily a disability?" (PDF). Cambridge: Autism Research Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 2 December 2008.
  13. ^ Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown A, et al. (GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators) (October 2016). "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015". Lancet. 388 (10053): 1545–602. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6. PMC 5055577. PMID 27733282.
  14. ^ Ferri, Fred F. (2014). Ferri's Clinical Advisor 2015 (E-Book). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 162. ISBN 9780323084307.
  15. ^ Lai, Meng-Chuan; Baron-Cohen, Simon (November 2015). "Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism spectrum conditions". The Lancet Psychiatry. 2 (11): 1013–27. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00277-1. PMID 26544750.
  16. ^ Frith U (1991). "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood". Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–92. ISBN 978-0-521-38608-1.
  17. ^ Klin A, Pauls D, Schultz R, Volkmar F (April 2005). "Three diagnostic approaches to Asperger syndrome: implications for research". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 35 (2): 221–34. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2001-y. PMID 15909408.
  18. ^ Wing L (1998). "The history of Asperger syndrome". In Schopler E, Mesibov GB, Kunce LJ (eds.). Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism?. New York: Plenum press. pp. 11–25. ISBN 978-0-306-45746-3. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016.
  19. ^ Woodbury-Smith M, Klin A, Volkmar F (April 2005). "Asperger's syndrome: a comparison of clinical diagnoses and those made according to the ICD-10 and DSM-IV". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 35 (2): 235–40. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2002-x. PMID 15909409.
  20. ^ Baker L (2004). Asperger's Syndrome: Intervening in Schools, Clinics, and Communities. Routledge. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-135-62414-9. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016.
  21. ^ Klin A (May 2006). "[Autism and Asperger syndrome: an overview]". Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. 28 Suppl 1 (suppl 1): S3–11. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006000500002. PMID 16791390.

So, overall the article needs an entire update, and the lead needs to be re-written in a logical flow that summarizes the overall well-known concepts. The overcited, outdated narrative in the lead, forced to a certain order that doesn't make sense or flow logically, needs to be reworked. Those who are able to update it are not going to work under conditions that force leads to be written in ways that do not reflect best FA practice. It is very sad that years of work by Eubulides on this article has been lost, as one of WPMED's top-viewed articles has fallen into disrepair. Unless the medicine project undertakes an update, I will !vote to Delist. There is still time to save this star, and I hope someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe would you like to revisit now? (BTW, I disagree with you on the length, which I think is just right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Setting the length aside for now, I think you're otherwise mostly correct in your evaluation of the article. I also think we need a subject matter expert to look at high-functioning autism and see if they should be merged (especially with the removal from the DSM). In other words my delist endorsement still stands. buidhe 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago I posted directly over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about the issues the article is having with keeping its featured status. No takers yet... Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Big BangEdit

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because this was last reviewed for FA status in 2007 and our FA standards have acceleratedly expanded since then. The "Misconceptions" section is a mess and can stand to be better formatted. The "Overview" section, which might not even be needed, has a {{Refimprove}} tag on it; there are also many uncited paragraphs throughout the rest of the article. I raised these concerns on the talk page two weeks ago but little work has been done on the article since then and there was no response on the talk page. This is also a Level 3 Vital Article, making this even more important. Overall, I don't think that this represents Wikipedia's best work, although there isn't anything that can't be reasonably fixed in the course of an FAR. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson: Please go ahead and improve the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Something that needs fixing is the lack of alt= on the images. This is needed for accessibility. I think that the overall size, number of sections and pictures is fine. But perhaps there could be some more tables, perhaps a Penrose diagram. Perhaps there is a suitable infobox exists for astronomical event, as it is not quite an object. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The image which appears in the lead,
    Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
    , is seriously misleading and deficient. No scale is given. The image makes it appear that the expansion suddenly slowed at the end of the inflationary period (which is false) and that the universe is only slightly larger now than it was then (also false). No doubt there are other errors in the details of the image. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed the "Overview" section and rearranged the content somewhat. However, I noticed that there's a large "Further Reading" list. Such lists are absent in the majority of Featured Articles, as generally speaking a source that belongs in a Further Reading list for most articles should be incorporated into a Featured Article to make the article as comprehensive as possible. There are of course exceptions, and this topic is certainly niche enough to have readings that would make good further reading while being too specialized for a general encyclopedia, but I wonder if someone who knows more about cosmology would be willing to check out these sources and see whether they can be incorporated into the article's prose. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What exactly is the Beyond the Big Bang section supposed to talk about? It's title it extremely vague, and its prose is highly convoluted (at least for me, a layman). Is it trying to say hypotheses for the origin of the initial singularity? I'm sure the Misconceptions section could be merged into this one if that's the case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I believe that it's about the limitations of the model and potential expansions on it (such as eternal inflation, brane cosmology, etc.), but the first paragraph doesn't seem to jibe well with it. I think that the first paragraph can be removed and each of the competing theories can be expanded to each have their own paragraph rather than a bullet point (subject to FRINGE, of course). I disagree that the Misconceptions should be merged into it, but I agree that both sections could stand to be greatly expanded. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 04:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I usually see this subject referred to as "Pre-big-bang cosmology", since it appears to be exploring the extended origins of the big bang event. Praemonitus (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have e-mailed Sean M. Carroll about this article and asked him to review it for its physics. I doubt that there's much wrong with the article in that respect (my major qualms are rather with presentation and prose), but I think it'd be nice to have a pair of expert eyes on it. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking through the article I noticed that the value of Hubble's constant was given as measured by the WMAP but that no mention was made of the discrepancy between that value and the one provided by the cosmic microwave background as detailed here (admittedly not the best source, but hopefully it's adequate for what I'm saying). I don't think it's that terribly important for the article, but I think some mention of it could be made. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, and Double sharp: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may only be of much help for the little bit about Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but I'll give it a look. ^_^ Something that comes to mind immediately is that the section on BBN as evidence comes a bit out of the blue: we have only so far had a brief mention that that happened during the first few minutes, and then we hear about abundances of nuclides all the way up to those minuscule little traces of lithium-7. So I would guess that the organisation needs quite some improvement, if I can spot this on a quick reading of the part I understand the best. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
R8R review

Not the topic I am most competent in, but I think I've got a good mix of more or less generally understanding what's going on and not being an expert in details (I've read a few pop-sci books from authors like Michio Kaku, and I've just recently started to watch videos from Fermilab to refresh my knowledge). I usually strive to make my articles readable for as many people as possible, so I hope I'll be able to provide you a review you'll find useful. But I'm afraid I'll only have enough spare time in a week or so. I hope that is okay.--R8R (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ComplexRational

I'll drop a few comments, but I may be busy and only focus on areas where I generally have a better understanding of the specific content and jump around between sections (though I will try to keep order within). At first glance, I'm seeing lots of uncited statements and areas where the prose needs work.

Here are a few examples from some sections:

  • Here, and throughout the article, all first- and second-person language (we, our) needs to be eliminated, as do phrases such as "catch up" (note the quotes in the article text). This is not formal or encyclopedic prose.
  • This defines a future horizon, which limits the events in the future that we will be able to influence. – I get a general idea of what this means, but I feel it could be better explained to the layperson and am inclined to ask "why?"
  • though the horizon recedes in space – not entirely clear what this means
  • Even with the hatnote, this could be elaborated upon. Why are horizons so important as suggested in the opening sentence?
Cosmic acceleration
  • a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy, which apparently permeates all of space. – this is uncited and uses language that suggests too much speculation; even though the science is not confirmed, this could be worded in a more encyclopedic way.
  • after numerous billion years of expansion – I'm pretty sure we can replace this with a number, and one that does not connote "numerous"
  • prior to 10−15 seconds or so – minor and easily fixable by itself, but I hope this isn't reflective of informality or prose issues throughout the article
  • Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is currently one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics. – citation needed
  • I would recommend introducing all individuals and their credentials, so the reader has more context and does not believe arbitrary people are being introduced. English astronomer Fred Hoyle is a good example of this. I could go ahead and make the changes myself, but the prose might still need some adjustment.

I'll post some more comments and look at other sections later on. From this, I see several recurring issues that are workable; I'm not convinced criteria 1a, 1c, and 1d are entirely met. ComplexRational (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: This may or may not apply to your work, but I thought it was appropriate to let you know of this. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am actually a condensed matter physicist, but I will try to have a look (can not guuarantee I will understand the details, and in any case I am mostly travelling for the next two days).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@ComplexRational, R8R, Double sharp, and Ymblanter: FAR and FARC work at a much slower pace than FAC. The original nominator/writer of this article is gone, so the question now is if someone wants to take this article on and bring it back to standard. If someone is willing to work on it, the article can hold in the FAR phase as long as work is progressing. If the problems are too great, or if no one is willing to take on the repairs, then our next step is to give the Coordinators an indication to move this to the FARC (removal) phase, by entering a Move to FARC declaration. Then, in the FARC phase, it still has a couple of more weeks, where if repairs don't happen, we !vote to Delist (or Keep if they do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for clarification. I'm in no hurry; if RL allows, I may even try to patch a few things up myself. My above comments were just short samples of the main issues I believe are present throughout the article, and hopefully a guide for others to chime in. ComplexRational (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to assist bringing the prose up to standard but I'm interested in further commentary on how the article meets 1c and 1d. There, I'm at a complete loss. --Laser brain (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    • My personal thoughts on that matter are that the sources are currently too primary for my liking; there are probably quite a few secondary sources given that this is the Big Bang we're talking about, so this seems to not live up to 1c as well as it could. This does seem neutral, IMO, although perhaps the "Beyond the Big Bang" section could be looked at by someone with more expertise in cosmology (Dr. Carroll unfortunately never got back to me) to weed out the fringier, although eternal inflation and its competitors are legitimate enough for some discussion there IMO. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • An enumeration of secondary sources that should be consulted is probably the most helpful next step here, if work is in fact to proceed. It would also give us an idea of just how much work is needed, so we could better gauge if it is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not an expert in cosmology, but the Further Reading looks like a good place to start. I'll look through that list and narrow it down (or expand it) from there. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The primary citations to Milne, Tolman, and Zwicky caught my eye but maybe those are appropriate. It seems odd to my untrained eye to speak of three formative works and cite the works themselves rather than a secondary source explaining their relevance. I live in fear of Further Reading sections because sometimes they are lazy receptacles for stuff the author didn't have time to review. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I initially thought that those citations were appropriate as well, but then I thought and became sure that there had to be some secondary sources that mentioned the discredited rivals. I agree that Further Reading sections tend to be anathema to FA status as I've said above, though perhaps it might be appropriate in this complex area. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Conversely, because space is expanding, and more distant objects are receding ever more quickly, light emitted by us today may never "catch up" to very distant objects. I think it's important to note here that the expansion of space alone is insufficient for this to be true; if space were expanding at a constant (even superluminal) rate light would still theoretically eventually reach us due to something similar to the ant on a rubber rope. The expansion is accelerating, hence why this is true. I don't have an authoritative source on that, but I think it should be added when one is found. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 08:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Perhaps it is better to keep specific text suggestions at the talk page of the article, and focus here on giving the Coords information about whether to move to FARC, work is ongoing, what work is still needed, etc. Otherwise, this review is going to grow extremely large. We have enough indications now that there are problems; resolving those problems can move to article talk, with periodic updates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, I just didn't want to add unsourced material, and I didn't think enough people were looking at the talk page, although they probably are now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 18:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

List of possible secondary sources

John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

    • All of these are quite old. I limited my search at Google Scholar to 2016 oldest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I tended to look for more general books rather than sources like journals; the book sources I think are more appropriate for the basics (expanding space, the history of the theory, etc.), while journal articles should be used for cutting edge things like eternal inflation and string theory. This is of course not a strict dichotomy, but I think the sources given are still adequate and authoritative. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is well-cited by other works according to Google Scholar: Calcagni
  • Cited by 500 according to Google Scholar: Cyburt
  • Another highly-cited article according to Google Scholar: Freedman

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I can get Calcagni from the local university library. --Laser brain (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Update please? @John M Wolfson, Laser brain, Ymblanter, ComplexRational, and R8R:, the last comment here is approaching two weeks now, and I see some editing has happened, but not a lot. Has the article significantly improved and is work ongoing? If not, it may be approaching time to consider whether to enter declarations regarding moving this FAR to the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I personally think that it's time to move this to FARC. I wonder how Laser brain's research has been coming along. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I am sorry for being slow, but I see that the text can still benefit from some improvement, which I am trying to introduce. I have no idea whether this improvment would have eny effect on the article status. If you have an op[inion you are welcome to proceed without me. In any case, I do not expect any revolutionary changes, only some readability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • +1 to Ymblanter. I'm very sorry for not having so much time to work on this—right now there is a lot going on for me IRL—but I still hold my concerns about language and references. ComplexRational (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I just got back from a work trip. I have a notice that a book came in via ILL but it would still be a long process to engage. We're a long way off. --Laser brain (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Progressing on the Calcagni text and taking notes as they might pertain to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist I admire and appreciate the work that's been done to the article since this review began. Unfortunately, I don't feel that it is enough to keep this at FA level and I feel that this should be delisted barring a significant amount of work soon. Very little work has been done on sourcing, which is unfortunate given the concerns raised in the review section. I think the quickest, most thorough, and overall best way to make this reach FA standards would be to delist it now, have more work done on it outside of the FAC/FAR process, and have it go through another FAC. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Holding pending more feedback from Laser brain on the interlibrary loan book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm unlikely to be at the point of editing the article for a long while. The material is dense and it will take time for me to understand where I can improve the citations. --Laser brain (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for trying, Laser. Ymblanter made a few improvements after the article moved to FARC,[7] but the main problems raised in the FAR have not been addressed after several months at FAR, and no one appears willing to address them on the scale needed. DELIST. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)