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 two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

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.

Urgent reviews are listed here. 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 is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator 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 over at least a two-week period. 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); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. 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

Bobby EatonEdit

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

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

What should be stated to be fair to the article is that a defense of the Will source was posted below my notice, and the linked RSN discussion indicates that it is a respected source. So it's a bit unfair to list the whole notice without noting that one of the sources has been strongly defended. My concerns about the various websites remain. Some issues still remain, but with Will & Duncan defensible, it is not in as bad of shape as had first appeared. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
And why wasn't McPhail notified? They're still active and are responsible for over 10% of the article's content according to the authorship tool. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for boldly sending this article to FAR and not being specific. Besides the sourcing, there are several unsourced statements. If this is all resolved, feel free to make your own decisions. BloatedBun (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The CreateSpace source meets the criteria for SPS. Mark James is an expert in the field, as noted in this article: [1]. This comes from Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) and explains some of his history in the business, including co-authoring autobiographies of Jerry Jarrett, Dutch Mantel, and Bill Dundee, as well as appearing as an expert on multiple series and documentaries, including WWE's Most Wanted Treasures on A&E. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
So with Duncan/Will OK and James defensible, then it's just the web sources that need checked for reliability? The main content looks like it's in decent shape. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish Civil WarEdit

Notified: User talk:Ldblsatin (no other significant contributors), WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Finland, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because issues identified with this article include:

  1. Verifiability: citation style doesn't allow easy verification of information, text–source integrity needs improvement
  2. Sourcing: some sources cited need to be replaced (see Ljleppan's comments on talk)
  3. Length: At 12,000 words, the article would benefit from more summary style
  4. Coverage: Ljleppan has brought up some topics that should be touched on in the article (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

James Robert BakerEdit

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

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

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

Citations for discussionEdit

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

1 - What Title should we use here? While the domain name was Baker's full name, the operator of the site, at the time of archiving appeared to be Ron Robertson. Can we clarify this title in any way? The URL itself was just a link to the main page on that website, so there's no other obvious title to chose from amongst the text.
2 - This citation doesn't actually mention Baker in any way. Is it being used to support the description of beatniks? Is this citation needed?
6 - This citation is a link to a specific book (Testosterone) on Amazon. Even in the archived version it is a link to that book. While it does support the text, I'm sure there must be a better version available somewhere.
8 - This citation links to Variety's search engine. However from the state of the citation prior to my cleanup I believe the intent was to link to Baker's obituary from 1997. I've changed the URL to that obituary, but wanted to note it here in case I was mistaken.
15 - This was an ambiguous citation previously. I was not able to find any information on a publication called "Book World", however a review by the same name and from the same author was published in The Washington Post in 1993. As it seems to support the claims used, I've swapped it to the Washington Post version for clarity.
19 - Prior to my cleanup this citation had See Also text, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here.
22 - Has a see also text, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. What was on page 65, of the September 11, 2000 issue of Publishers Weekly?
23 - Alibris citation only links to the (former) front page of that website. In the archive version this does not make any mention of Baker's works. This is also true for the Biblio website, though that website is still live. This use of these sources seems rather like original research to me, is there a source we can actually use here/
24 - No page number available, don't know the author's full name. I'm unable to find any archived copies of this online. Is there anywhere we can source this from? Do we know anyone in Australia, who has library access, and stores the Herald Sun in its microfilm archives?
26 - While the source text is positive about Boy Wonder, it seems to be a review of only one person. Even in conjunction with citation 25, I'm not sure how this demonstrates Boy Wonder to be Baker's "magnum opus". Do we have any stronger/other sources for this claim?

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

Without Jeffpw, I doubt if anyone has these answers; we shall see. This is why I feared the article might not be saveable ... Jeffpw is really the only editor who worked on the article ... all others who contributed (like me) were only doing cleanup and maintenance ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Still early days yet, we've only been open 24 hours so more people may come along. And worst case, I like to think of these as notes/prompts to bust out some Google-fu when I'm not quite so tired! The only one I'm pretty non-confident on finding more information about is #24, just because of it needing somewhat esoteric source access, on a continent far far away. But we may get lucky if we go through WP:WRE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Been busy the last couple of days on an RfC closure, so only getting around to looking at this list in more detail now.
Source 24. I've so far been able to establish that there are no copies of it online. The Herald Sun website does not have archives of articles that old, and none of the newspaper archive websites available through LIB have it in their collections. The State Library Victoria, in Melbourne says they have it in their microfilm archive though. So I've filed a request at REREQ, with as much information as I can, in the hopes that some editor local to that library can find the piece.
I'll try and set aside the time to dig deeper into the other sources over the next day or so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Good news on source 24! REREQ have found a copy. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as a whole, aside from a throwaway reference to Tim and Pete, it does say that at the time of writing (August 1995), an "autographed hard cover first edition" of Fuel-Injected Dreams cost the author $75. As this the purchase was from a book shop in San Francisco, the currency appears to be US dollars and not Australian dollars. I'll hopefully add the relevant quote to the citation, just as soon as I can check whether or not that would be a copyvio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Quotation added to source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The WireEdit

Notified: Andrew Levine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject LGBT studies, 2021-04-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are full sections, as well as multiple sentences, that are uncited. The critical response section is also very disorganised and needs to be trimmed. IMDB and Amazon are also used as references and should probably be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not super familiar with The Wire, so I don't feel comfortable researching and rewriting the whole article, but one section that should be easy to fix is Awards. The main article for that section is an FL, so there should be plenty of sources there to improve that section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Just a quick general note that I will offer. The article should be restructured to follow MOS:TV's section order, (ie cast and episode info above production), and I would greatly reduce the season summaries per WP:TVPLOT or just remove them entirely since there's already a list of episode and season articles, just leaving the overview table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmitri ShostakovichEdit

Notified: Henry Flower, CurryTime7-24, Wikiproject Composers, talk page notice 2022-01-28

In late January, I brought up the article's problems at its talk page. It was last reviewed in 2007 and is unfortunately the poorest quality of all composer FAs. Sourcing is the most critical issue. Some pages are missing, and there are multiple CN tags present, though there should be far more. Some paragraphs rely on a single inline citation; the entire "Recorded legacy" section is an example. The article lacks enormous amounts of information available both in print and online. The "Early career" and "Later life, and death" sections both display elements of "list of events" rather than prose. They are also dull and monotone. Thank you and good luck to anyone who is willing and able to keep this FA. Wretchskull (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree with Wretchskull above, and also the English is often unacceptable shoddy, e.g. "Even before the postwar Stalinist anti-Semitic campaigns, Shostakovich showed an interest in Jewish themes", and "Thereafter, Shostakovich would celebrate the date of his symphonic debut for the rest of his life." The 'Music' section is painfully thin to the point of transparency. But where and how to begin reconstruction?--Smerus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I think the biography is largely salvageable with some care and a few more citations. I'm concerned that the music section would need a complete rewrite. There seems to be three approaches to music sections on WP, those considered with genres, those with style and those with chronology. The style group works best when composers stuck to a single or few mediums/genres, like in Chopin or Mahler. The genre approach works well with diverse oeuvres (Berlioz, Ravel), and the chronological approach can be used in similar situations effectively (Debussy, Holst). Currently Shostakovich is using a poorly written stylistic approach, which I don't think works well, and either the genre or chronological one would be considerably more effective. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm starting to realize that the lead is like, really bad... Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
      Yes but the thing is there's not much point rejigging the lead until the article has been rewritten. The lead presently contains much text which is not validated by the article, and contains a host of citations referring to matters not covered in the article - as well as contradicting itself (e.g. "Long dismissed by Western scholars"/" throughout his life was regarded as one of the major composers of the 20th century".) Really all a bit of a mess. The article should certianly be stripped of FA status at present.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
      Tbf I added the "Long dismissed by Western scholars", only because Grove says "For many years, serious scholars in the West had scarcely bothered with Shostakovich", but the situation is impossible to explain properly without a well-researched reputation section to pull from (and the one at the moment is not ideal). Aza24 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Roger WatersEdit

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

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

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

Jack SparrowEdit

Notified: Alientraveller, PNW Raven, Brojam, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Piracy, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, talk page notice 2022-04-26

Since the 2015 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jack Sparrow/archive1, this article has been left behind and was never watchlisted by editors or took care the article. The article has been outdated for some time, and there have been no updates or additional content added since the recent lawsuit. There are also several templates in other sections. The reception/cultural impact could be expanded a lot and maybe remove most of the listicles on that section. BloatedBun (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Delist It looks like this article just needs a little touching up, but as of right now it is definitely does not look like an FA. The lead is fine, but it mentions nothing about his reception. There are also 7 unreliable sources used, which includes Imbd, International Business Times, and goodreads. There is also a post 2013 Newsweek and Allmovie ref as well as a dead link. I also think there are way too many primary sources, but I didnt look into where they are being used. The characters section looks pretty good except for when it is not even talking about the and is talking about the movie such as this On Stranger Tides was first announced on September 28, 2008, during a Disney event at the Kodak Theatre. Verbinski did not return to direct the fourth installment and was replaced by Rob Marshall. The movie uses elements from Tim Powers' novel of the same name, particularly Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth, but the film is not a straight adaptation of the novel. The fifth film, Dead Men Tell No Tales, was co-directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. I think the Johhny Depp section is good as well as the make-up and costumes section. The film section seems to be fine. I don't think the stuff like this in characterization needs to be said which compels the admiration of Lieutenant Groves as he concedes: "That's got to be the best pirate I have ever seen". Norrington himself acquiesces to this praise: "So it would seem", in sharp contrast to what he had previously proclaimed: "You are without doubt the worst pirate I have ever heard of"., but that might just be me. The part in characterization where it talks about what Jack was based off and inspired by needs to go in concept and creation. The second paragraph in reception and impact on pop culture looks good, but the first one is just mainly listicles. In other media seems to be fine unless it can really be expanded. That is just my quick overview of the article which has lead me to an unfortunate delist. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    Kaleeb18 please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Delist are not declared at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    SandyGeorgia oh oops. thanks for telling me. I guess I did not thoroughly read the message at WikiProject Disney and thought we were already on that stage. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Maximus the ConfessorEdit

Notified: Pastordavid, WT:BIO, WT:GREECE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece/Byzantine world task force, WT:XNB, WT:SAINTS, WT:CATHOLIC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WT:ANGLICAN, WT:LUTHER, WT:PHIL, WT:RELIGION, talk-page notice 2022-03-22

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing/comprehensiveness concerns and other issues. As noted on the talk page, some content lacks citations altogether, and I'm also concerned by the reliance on outdated sources like Philip Schaff and the Catholic Encyclopedia. More significantly, there are a number of books in the further reading section and elsewhere that aren't cited at all: Thunberg 1995, Louth 1996, Nichols 1994, and many, many more. That's a major red flag, and the rather brief article has other serious comprehensiveness issues: it provides only minimal scholarly commentary on Maximus's theology, the debates over biographical facts (stemming from contradictions between the two main sources) are touched on only briefly, and the legacy and reception sections are incomplete. More minor issues include citation formatting, MOS:SANDWICH, and content that appears only in the lead. This is an important article, but I fear it would require a very significant amount of work to bring it back up to standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the phrase "Imperial Capital". It is capitalized once, but not the other time. Most readers probably won't know which city it is, so sentences should be worded to indicate that. Also, saying he wrote the "earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus" sounds not quite right. Just ending the sentence with "the Virgin Mary" or should be enough. But with, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" the question turns to, Why not "Mary, the Mother of God"? Is the author a heretic? He wasn't a heretic, so the the article should reflect that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC lack of engagement/edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand PrixEdit

Notified: AlexJ, DH85868993, Spa-Franks, WP Formula One, WP Microstates, talk page notice 2021-10-09

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard; the FAC nominator has not edited for almost 10 years. The 2021-10-09 issues outlined on talk are comprehensiveness. There is also MOS:SANDWICH, and other indications that a MOS review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC lack of edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - some improvements in February, but nothing really since then. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06

Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.
Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)
My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

90377 SednaEdit

Notified: DarkHorizon, Serendipodous, Kheider, Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, Eurocommuter, Ruslik0, JorisvS, WolfmanSF, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-04-03

I am nominating this article for review because this 2010 featured article is not up to standards anymore. The problem is mainly with FA criteria 1b and 1c ("comprehensive" and "well researched").

The vast majority of the article is between 12 and 14 years old, which is an eternity, both in astronomy and in Wikipedia history. Our understanding of Trans-Neptunian Objects in general has evolved a lot. To give just one example, most of the "classification" section was written in 2008, and some of it is obviously outdated. For instance, the sentence "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" (introduced in this edit on 16 February 2008) is wrong since 2012 VP113 was announced in 2014. While some errors like this are easy to correct individually, they are a symptom of the article's overall lack of maintenance, accumulated over the past decade. I raised the issue on the article talk page a month ago, but got zero responses.

A minor issue I have raised in my most recent post on the article talk page is the lack of a section dedicated to observations, see Talk:90377_Sedna#No_"observations"_section? Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add: Following my last FAR nomination, which went over my head, I was uncertain about whether to raise this issue at all. I decided to go ahead, but I don't know how much I can contribute. I do have some expertise about the subject (more so than for the topic of the last FAR), which I am willing to offer, but I invite the users I notified to assist, if they can. Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
One more thing - I have not corrected the issue mentioned above ("no other objects have yet been discovered...") because, even though I assume that this may be an easy one to correct, I was waiting for input on the talk page, which there wasn't. I didn't know how to correct it a month ago and I don't know now. Renerpho (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Close without FARC. I'm not so convinced by the nominator's argument. Looking at the article, it seems like it's in pretty good shape. We haven't learned a whole lot of new things about Sedna since it was promoted to FAC in 2010. The biggest developments have been the discovery of a few other similar objects as well as Sedna's relation to the Planet Nine hypothesis, both of which are already included in the article. The statement "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" is in relation to Sedna's specific orbit with regard to whether it could be considered a planet, not with regard to other similar objects in general. That seems like a fair statement given that the other similar objects are not really in Sedna's vicinity, at least not compared to Pluto and its nearby KBOs. Some of the observations of Sedna after its discovery are already mentioned in the physical characteristics section when such observations were responsible for the discovery of new information about Sedna. I don't think it's really necessary to include other post-discovery observations that didn't help us learn more about Sedna. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Concern - the thing that sticks out to me is that the article isn't quite sure what 90377 Sedna is. The first sentence of the article states directly "Sedna (minor-planet designation 90377 Sedna) is a dwarf planet " but the classification section states that the official classification body considers it to be a "scattered object", but also says that some consider it a new class of object, and that it is also expected to meet the requirements to be a dwarf planet and that some have called it such. So the lead calls it a dwarf planet but the article body suggests that there's much disagreement about classification? Additionally, "Such a mission could be facilitated by Dual-Stage 4-Grid ion thrusters that might cut cruise times considerably if powered, for example, by a fusion reactor" looks like original research, unless the source specifically discusses a mission to Sedna; this is sending off strong original research warning signs because the "such a mission" referred to was proposed in 2018, while the source for that sentence is from 2009 so it's clearly not directly referring to the proposed mission. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • It's both a "dwarf planet" and a "scattered disc object", the same way Pluto is both a "dwarf planet" and a "Kuiper Belt object", but "dwarf planet" is clearly the primary classification in both cases. "Dwarf planet" is what it is, and "scattered disc object" is where it is. However, based on where it is, it's not really clear it should be considered a "scattered disc object" and might be better considered an "inner Oort Cloud object". There is no concretely accepted answer, and that is discussed in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
      • One correction: It looks like the Minor Planet Center doesn't list Sedna as a "scattered disc object" anymore. Still, I don't think there is so much to change because the article already presented that it wasn't really a scattered disc object. Sportsfan77777 (talk)
        • Any idea where to find what (if anything) the MPC classifies Sedna as these days? @XOR'easter:? This looks fairly easily savable to my layman's eyes, so hopefully we can get this one pushed over the line. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
        As far as I can tell, they just list it as a transneptunian object [2]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
        • Sedna was listed as a SDO at [3], but this is no longer the case. Renerpho (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    • There is no official proposed mission. They are both talking about it hypothetically, albeit separately. You could go with "This type of mission" instead of "Such a mission" to better separate the two? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I think this would probably be an improvement. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Renerpho Thanks for the comments, which sound encouraging so far. Below are some points, with details of where the article may no longer be in line with recent results. I'm sorry I didn't put these into the original nomination, but I have not yet been able to fully review the article. If someone with expertise in the topic could help with adding points that are outdated, I'd appreciate it! The points below are mostly about the "classification" section.

  • As noted, the classification isn't straight-forward (for example, the dwarf planet classification is at odds with the "official" IAU status, compare Talk:90377_Sedna#Sedna_is_not_a_dwarf_planet_according_to_the_IAU). I think there is room for improvement when it comes to how Wikipedia handles these cases in general, but so far, the Sedna article seems to be in line with what we do elsewhere. No action about this is needed in the Sedna article, as far as I am concerned.
  • Johnston's Archive, which is used in some similar articles ((589683) 2010 RF43, for example) classifies Sedna simply as a sednoid.[4] Should we add that as an additional source?
  • Regarding the lack of objects in Sedna's vicinity, I think the claim at least requires a reference that says what it actually means. I am uncomfortable with solely relying on your (reasonable) interpretation, Sportsfan77777, especially since the sentence was added when my interpretation would have been purely hypothetical.
  • Caltech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Brown have hypothesised the existence of a giant planet in the outer Solar System, nicknamed Planet Nine. - The numbers in that section (mass, orbital period) don't reflect the latest results by Batygin&Brown, compare the Planet Nine article. Should we update this?
  • To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case. - The reference for this is (Brown, 2008), which is fairly old, and determining whether something is in hydrostatic equilibrium was thought to be easier at the time. Brown's "dwarf planet census" seems to have fallen out of favour recently, because it is no longer in line with scientific consensus. See Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_there_some_reason_why_we_still_keep_Brown's_values? for a discussion. It turns out that this is complicated (for a recent related discussion of the possible shortfalls of what "hydrostatic equilibrium" means, see Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_the_Moon_in_hydrostatic_equilibrium?). An additional problem is that the size at which an object is expected to be in HE depends on its composition. In 2019, Grundy et al. found Sedna to likely be in HE, but also that many objects with diameters of 400-1000 km (Sedna: ca.1000 km) have densities that don't seem to allow for them to be in HE.[1] Compare the discussion at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Grundy_et_al.’s_assessment. Sedna's density remains unknown.
  • and several astronomers have called it one - That's nice, but none of the cited references is younger than 10 years. We can add Grundy from 2019, but it would be nice to have additional recent sources. I'll see if I can find any. Maybe someone can have a look, too?
  • What about the addition of an "observations" section? I see one reply above that argues against it, and one on the article talk page that is in favour of the addition. Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


  1. ^ Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Buie, M.W.; Benecchi, S.D.; Ragozzine, D.; Roe, H.G. (December 2019). "The mutual orbit, mass, and density of transneptunian binary Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà ((229762) 2007 UK126)" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037. S2CID 126574999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-07.


Notified: Double sharp, Serendipodous, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, talk page notice 2022-01-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its many problems. I've looked through the majority of "citation needed" tags - there are 40 of them now, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. Artem.G (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Artem.G, please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Done, I notified Double sharp and Serendipodous who edited the page not so long ago and who write about astronomy-related stuff; don't know how to find other major contributors who are active now. Artem.G (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm very busy for the next two or three months, but I fixed some cn tags where a citation immediately came to mind. Many of them are pretty standard facts. My apologies that I cannot do much more than this for the time being! Double sharp (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Upon a first quick examination, it seems that most of the {{cn}} tags can be filled by standard textbooks and/or digging references out of neighboring bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The lede is something of a mess. For example, there's no way that a niche term like "planemo" belongs in the first paragraph. (To illustrate, it gets 111 hits on Google Scholar, versus 4,380 for "planetoid" and over 20,000 for "planetesimal".) Nor does it follow the article's organization, jumping into arcana of the IAU definition (which I gather to some people is what MOS:ERA is for Wikipedians) before summarizing the history. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I tried my hand at drafting a new lede here, though I'm not sure whether the lede should be fixed first or last. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I like your version, it's definitely better than the current one! If nobody would object I see no reason why the old lede should be preferred. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and kicked the hornets' nest replaced the lede. I even resisted the temptation to add "so let's not fuck it up" to the end of the first paragraph.
We're down to 19 16 citations needed. Some of them can probably be filled in without altering the surrounding text, while others might be eliminated by purging the accumulated cruft. The page needs a lot of work, but what I can't yet say is how hard that work will be. Some of the problems might well be solved by taking a good look, recognizing that the sentence doesn't belong in a broad overview of a big idea, and cutting it away. Applying a machete can go pretty quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll be able to work on this any more; sorry. XOR'easter (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I added in the missing citations. I don't really have the bandwidth to think about what should be chopped and what should be kept. jps (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Larrys CreekEdit

Notified: Ruhrfisch, WP Rivers, WP Pennsylvania noticed in March 2021

This 2006 promotion needs a touch of updating to get back to featured article criteria, but should overall be a fairly doable save. There's a sizable amount of uncited material in the plank road section, and there is some areas that need updating. For instance, "and it is still in operation as of 2007" is supported by a 1992 work and the lodge's dead GoDaddy site, so there's no indication in the sources if it's still open or not. "As of 2006, the club has 55 active and 15 honorary members (all male)." could also use updating, and the whole recreation section probably needs to be checked for datedness. The claim of "Larrys Creek is the largest creek in Lycoming County without its own watershed association" appears to be no longer accurate, based on this and this. The first PDF linked is only from 2011, but still suggests that the natural gas stuff in the article needs updating, with a reference to 38 gas pads in the watershed and an incident involving drilling mud getting into the stream. It also states that two of the tributaries of the creek are officially considered to have impaired water quality. This also mentions that it is illegal to put water from the natural gas operations into Larrys Creek, which would be interesting to add if a better source than a lesson plan could be found. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I cwill work on it, but am fairly busy in real life (though I should be less busy in 2 to 3 weeks). My recollection is that the Plank Road material is mostly from the Landis article (back in the day I went to a library with a print copy and read that, and there is link to a re-typed version of the article given here for convenience). - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to work on this! If you need to take several weeks to work on the article, that's fine. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ruhrfisch has taken care of a good chunk of the uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Diary of a CamperEdit

Notified: TKD, JudgeDeadd, WP Film, WP Video games, WP Animation, talk page notice 2021-07-12

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, with problems noted on talk last July including sourcing, datedness, comprehensiveness, and prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The reception section goes against all typical modern standards even for Good Articles, such as extensive use of direct quotations, such that I wouldn't even consider it up to modern GA standards. The references also need a total rework to connect them directly to inline citations with page numbers incorporated in them, which suggests to me that the referencing style is very outdated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 04:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Zxcvbnm please review the WP:FAR instructions; keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Apologies, I removed it. It still works as commentary without the declaration though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    Correct; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm... This looks like an interesting one. I'll do some work on it now but look at getting some serious edits in during the first week of May. Hopefully I should have addressed the talk page concerns and started really revising it by May 8. I'll add the comments from the talkpage below so that we can keep all the comments related to this review in one place. MSG17 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    MSG17 templates are avoided at FAR and FAR for Template limit issues. Also, it's not necessary to transfer the full talk page notice to this page; it is linked above, so I have removed it. You can work on talk and only update issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I will go back and redo my searches and see if I can pull up additional sourcing to update the content next week when I'm (finally) back to a more regular editing pattern. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Looks like you're doing a great job updating the article and providing more context. Thanks! MSG17 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I've gone looking at the first batch of sources I pulled and mostly I think they're just useful for further buttressing claims already in the article (first example of machinima.) There's a bit more that can be pulled out of the Den of Geek article I think, and then I'll go for a deeper trawl through my academic databases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
        • I've gone through and cut a lot of the overused quotes and summarized a bit more of the content; I've also added in a bit from the newer sources I've found. I've got one potential option for more from ILL that'll be here in a few days, but I think for the most part the well of newer coverage is exhausted. MSG17 has done a good job addressing other issues. The article still needs another stiff copyedit (I'll take a stab next week), but I think it's in much better shape than it was before. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)Edit

Notified: TomStar81, Parsecboy, Dawkeye, Bellhalla, Bschorr, WP MILHIST, WP Hawaii, WP NRHP, WP Missouri, WP Museums, WP Ships, WP Japan, WP Korea, WP USA, discussion of concerns in 2020

This 2005 promotion is now the second-oldest entry at WP:URFA/2020A. As noted in 2020 by Parsecboy, this article is over-reliant on DANFS at the expense of scholarly sources such as Stillwell. The article also directly copies DANFS for sizable swaths, which was quite acceptable at the time but is not really at FA today, especially when there's other literature to use. At a minimum, Stillwell should be used more, and Butler would be good for the grounding material. I suspect that Reilly would also be useful, although I am not familiar with that work. Much of the WWII section was improved back in 2020, but there hasn't been continued progress since. This is a pretty core article for MILHIST and especially for Operation Majestic Titan, hopefully it can be saved. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


  • As Hogfarm noted, the article relies on DANFS too much; it's a government source, which should be used with some caution. Some use is fine depending on the context, and in the cases of very obscure ships, it's unavoidable, but Missouri is among the most famous, well-documented ships so finding alternatives is not a problem.
  • There are a number of sources that could be consulted to address the DANFS issue, in addition to Stillwell. Garzke & Dulin would be a good first choice to supplement Stillwell. I'm not familiar with Reilly's book, but it should also be useful; Caresse's The Battleships of the Iowa Class: A Design and Operational History might also help (though I'm given to understand that it's pretty photo heavy).
  • There is a fair bit of extraneous info that could be culled. For example, in the Korea section the two paragraphs that begin and end at "MacArthur's amphibious landings at Incheon...were evacuated by way of the sea on 24 December 1950." are almost completely off-topic that could be summarized in a sentence or two to provide the context needed.
  • There are plenty of prose issues that need to be ironed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The box is very long, and I don't think it does its purpose of summarizing the article well; it more or less fills the same purpose as the lead section (with the exception of technical information that is better suited to tabular display), and I think the article's authors have lost sight of that. It's filled with extraneous info that add little for the reader's understanding of the topic. I could happily see the badge, motto, and nickname fields go; the locator map for Pearl Harbor probably isn't of much use; I'm 50/50 on whether Margaret Truman should be listed in the sponsor field (in that yes, she's notable, but is she all that significant in the narrative of this ship that she should be mentioned in the box? The ordered field could probably go as well, in the interest of trimming things down. And the architect field in the NHRP section is redundant.
  • Conversely, the lead is far too short and doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Why do we care that this ship was the third vessel named after the state? And why is that included when ship's WWII and Korea activities are described in a single sentence? No mention of goodwill cruises in the 1940s, or the grounding in 1950, or any of the ship's activities in the 80s and 90s apart from Desert Storm (which is also pretty minimal). For an article that is 75kb long, I'd expect more than 7(!) sentences in the lead.
  • I'd wonder whether anything of note has happened since 2010, the latest info we have on the ship here. I know visitation was shut down in 2020, returned to limited operation late in the year, and then returned to full operation in mid-2021 - presumably that should be included. Apparently various educational activities and such are held aboard the ship - presumably that should be mentioned too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Beyond what Hog Farm and Parsecboy have already mentioned, the images seem a little repetitive. There are two photographs of the exact same perspective from different decades. That would be great in a coffee table book, but I'm not sure how that is encyclopedic as there is no mention of how the second one differs from the first one other than time and painted numbers. The pop culture section should discuss the vessel's use in film (why is it chosen over other American museum battleships) and not just have a listing of what movies the vessel appeared in. Was there any fallout from the Cher music video beyond the navy not being happy? Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • According to Stillwell, the Cher incident created a minor controversy in the press (and generated complaints from veterans) but nothing significant as far as official reactions; as far as what he says, it's not clear to me that the Navy was particularly unhappy, since it amounted to free publicity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, so even more reason to support your positions earlier, Stillwell needs more use. Llammakey (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
        • For the curious (I was, obviously) the FA criteria added the bit about being representative of published works in Aug 2006, about a year after this article's FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I’m late to this party, sorry, I’m just off work and after 8 long nights I am wiped out, but I note that I stand by what I stated earlier: the article itself is still sound. The external links are good and the sourcing is adequate, although the reliance on danfs and prose puffery have chewed into the articles quality. Still, though, this is a good 80% or so still featured article, so migrating sources and trimming prose shouldn’t be too hard here.
  • As noted at the the article talk page, I'm not interested in becoming an advocate for FA status, but am interested in helping to improve the article, including working in some areas noted here. I did order the Stilwell and Butler books. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I received the Stilwell book and started reading it. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe that I resolved the issue of insufficient coverage of Korean war service in the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think "USS Missouri Memorial Association Inc" requires its own subsection, and listing the salary ranges of its chief executives puts the article off focus (we don't put captain's pay grades in ship articles, you know). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Good points, I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Question for the FA regulars. I bought and am reading the Stilwell and Butler books. Stilwell is a very thorough and extensive book on the Missouri, and Butler is on the grounding. Some of the comments above were basically that heavy use of or reliance on DANFS is a minus with respect to the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" FA criteria. I'd be happy to add cites to some pages in those books to some items that are cited only to DANFS. My question is: with respect to that FA criteria and it's application here, would it be better to remove the DANFS cites on those or just leave them double cited? North8000 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    @North8000: Sorry for the slow reply and the logged out reply, I’m pulling a double shift tonight and I don’t log in on the iPad, however the answer is that you should double cite. This establishes two separate citations for the information, so if we lose one we can use the other in cases like that to confirm the info. I believe that I had seen Stillwell’s book on Missouri before, it should be several hundred pages of detailed information if I recall correctly…only now that I’m not a student I can’t get back to the library on campus to use the book because the COVID pandemic has it limited to students and staff only at the moment. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:CD89:8DDE:70F1:59CE (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, an immense and thorough book. And it lists about 300 sources that it drew from (including interviews etc.) The only limitation is that it ends approx 1995. At that point the ship was de-comissioned, in Brementon, somewhat open to visitors. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the question of Margaret Truman in the info box, regarding info boxes, I'm sort of a "when in doubt, leave it out" guy. But that aside, she had a long history with / interactions with the ship that spanned many decades, and her dad was a strong and powerful (including as president) supporter of the ship, also with many interactions with the ship. IMO probably merits a line in the info box. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I finished reading the Stillwell book and started adding cites in places where only DANFS was cited. Also based on detailed coverage in Stillwell, fixed what was clearly an error (results of star shell accident) and removed the web site source that had the error and was only used for that item. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: BorgQueen, Zefr, Bunchofgrapes, PhoebeJudge, WP Plants, WP Indonesia, WP Malaysia, WP Tambayan Philippines, WP Singapore, WP Food and drink, WP South Asia, WP India, WP Agriculture, WP Southeast Asia, WP Vietnam, WP Thailand, noticed 2022-02-17

This 2007 promotion needs a bit of a touch-up to continue to meet the FA criteria. As per Sandy's notice, there is uncited text, some dated production statistics, a one-sentence section about environmental impacts that needs additional context, and a lack of discussion about diseases/pests, especially since we have an entire list on that subject. (List of durian diseases and pests). The original FAC nominator has indicated on the talk page that they may not be interested in working this one back up. The #2 editor in the xtools authorship has not been notified because their contributions to the article are mainly just a giant IABot run. Hog Farm Talk 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no prior history with this article but might be interested in trying to resolve these concerns. But I will also soon be working on The Core Contest, so my attention may be divided between articles for a bit. What is the usual timeline for FARs? DanCherek (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Generally, FARs will be left open as long as work in continuing on the article, but it is generally ideal for their to not be overly long gaps in the article improvement process. The hope, though, is always to save the star when possible. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will give it a shot! DanCherek (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@DanCherek: - I see you've only edited the article once since April. Do you still think you'll be able to continue to make the needed improvements here? Hog Farm Talk 20:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to focus on more than one major article at a time, and need to prioritize TCC in the short term... no objections to proceeding to FARC if needed. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess move to FARC then, with the hope that it will be worked on there as well. Hog Farm Talk 21:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Noting for FAR purposes - DanCherek has started working on this one. Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: work ongoing as of 28 April (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Natalie Clifford BarneyEdit

Notified: Celithemis, Caeciliusinhorto, WP bio, WP LGBT studies, WP France, WP Ohio, WP US, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, WP Women, talk page notificatoin 2021-12-20

This 2006 promotion, whose original nominator is gone, has some uncited text that will hopefully be easily addressed for a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've sent a notice to WP:WIG as they have expressed interest in improving FAs under their purview. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
A few {{citation needed}}s have already been resolved. Various sources I can see snippets of say that Barney and Brooks met in October 1916, not 1914. XOR'easter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing the same, though I'm also seeing 1915, and most of the sources I've read comment on there being uncertainty. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added a note mentioning the dispute; if someone has a source for a claim that it was as late as 1916 (the biographies of Barney all seem to say late 1914 or 1915) feel free to add it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Rapazzini estimates October 1916, on page 17. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I've resolved a few further {{cn}} tags; four of the main sources are available through the Internet Archive's library if anyone else wants to help work on this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. When finished with CNs, could you all please check that all of the Other references are actually used as citations, and if not, please trim or remove to Further reading as appropriate? I would not be opposed if you switched to SFNs, as that makes it easier to see what is used and what is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff was here that I've now moved to the talk page due to SG's reply below. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR pages are not usually sub-sectioned until/unless they become extremely long. The fixes needed here are simple enough that discussion could be on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me. I moved it all to the talk page and left a note in its place. 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks good: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Good improvements ongoing, discussion on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Good progress, still two citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
If the two remaining tags can't be resolved, should that text be deleted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Both tags include some info that's definitely true, and I'd love a bit more time on resolving without removal. 48 hours? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
No hurry, just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Truly, you are a vicious taskmaster. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Did what I could! There's still one cn tag. Maybe C and X want a crack at it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Trying to catch up from the car, iPad editing. I thought I had fixed this, but MOS:SANDWICH is back big time ... either images need to be removed, or they need to be moved or combined to multiple images ... I can't do that from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is underdeveloped and not an overview/summary; we go straight from a one-sentence intro para to mid-life, nothing on early life, and is Legacy covered enough? Lead needs expansion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Returning after a few weeks away, the lead is still underdeveloped, and MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. I can work no the sandwiching if no one else does, but we need a proper lead before the FAR can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Californication (album)Edit

Notified: Naerii, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers diff, WikiProject Alternative music, diff, WikiProject Albums, talk page notification 2021-05-04

I am nominating this featured article for review because... as outlined by User:Hog Farm here, this 2007 FA has seen better days and is certainly the Chili Peppers FA (out of five) in the worst state. Outside of sourcing concerns that Hog Farm mentioned, all of the article's single release dates are currently unsourced, the entire outtakes section is sourced by one source (unreliable at that), the critical reception section is a mess, and the article in its current state doesn't really justify what it to the band themselves (i.e. being a fan of the band, it essentially saved them after the comedown that was One Hot Minute and proved they would succeed after Blood Sugar Sex Magik).

I feel like I could do some things to help, but imo the entire article needs a major revamp, and I unfortunately do not have the sources to be able to do that. So here we are. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Yeah, I knew this was gonna happen. All of the RHCP articles that got promoted to FA status are old, and most need some cleanup. I worked on Niandra Lades so I'll see what I can do for this article.
Side note, two RHCP albums (Californication and Blood Sex Sugar Magik) are in the Rolling Stone 500 project, and while realistically that project will never come close to being finished, I still think it's important to keep at the very least those two albums at FA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Famous Hobo I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Zmbro: I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Famous Hobo Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo and Zmbro: - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Hog Farm Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Removed. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
@Zmbro and Famous Hobo: - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Sorry about the delay, I'll get back on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: Ceoil, WP Gender Studies, WP LGBT studies, WP London, WP Lehigh Valley, WP Women writers, WP Women, WP Bio, WP Pennsylvania, WP Women's history, WP Poetry, talk page notice 2022-03-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is some uncited text and after having tried to source some of it and read a bit about the subject I found there is some rather important info either missing or uncited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I see what you mean. Some problems are quick to fix, like the external links in the bibliography, which can become footnotes instead. I do think the article is rescuable, though it would be easier if there was a really good, recent biography to rely on for filling gaps. I would have liked to find something from 2000 or later, but even the HD society doesn't point to one. The best sources might be:
    • this 1995 bio
    • from 2011, the MLA Approaches to Teaching H.D.’s Poetry and Prose might have some very useful overviews
    • Susan Friedman’s article in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 45, 2nd series (volume is entitled, Modern American Poets) - HD society calls it "excellent and highly recommended"
    • Herself Defined: the Poet H.D. and Her World, by Barbara Guest, an "authorized biography" from the 80s that still seems to be in use
Before I did my source search, I was more alarmed by the fact that the sources in the article are a little old. But now that I have looked for something newer, I am a little less worried that they are out of date. Or, if they are, there isn't an obvious better source. I am pretty busy this week but may see if I can find some of these sources and start poking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Its a fair nom of an old FAR save and does need to be brought up to standard. The recent FAR driven overhaul of the closely related Imagism[6] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through some other poetry FAs and seen some have an own article on works or bibliography like Stephen Crane or Maya Angelou. Other FAs also have a selection of works included in the article on the author. I'd personally prefer an own article for her bibliography, but I am not so much into the subject. Or maybe her works could be presented more in detail as in some of the other FAs. What is your opinion on the matter Ceoil? - Paradise Chronicle
Usually would go for a separate article, but think here the section (now retitled "selected works" so we don't have to be exhaustive and converted to two columns so it doesn't take up too much space), we have is concise and manageable. Not opposed to spinning out however. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As an update, am traveling for another week or so, so do not have access to my book sources. Also have ordered [7] which looks promising for expansion. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Having seen your effort in ordering a book on her, I also made some online research and intend to work on the article a bit while you are away for the next week or so.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Am really delighted to hear that :) Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I am getting into it. On her relationship with Bryher there seemed to be quite much written and Norman Holmes Pearson, the holder of her copyrights is not mentioned yet in the article. They seemed to have had an extensive, decades-long professional relationship, with him publishing her works also after her death. H.D.'s daughter Perdita seemed to be working with him during WW 2 in the secret service.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As an update, my copy arrived yesterday, but am still at the reading through stage. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am updating the article with info I find. I don't so much take care on prominent sources (because I don't find them on the subject) but on info I see as notable. But like this it might not be a FAR. I hope for Coeil to maybe find some ways to keep it an FA. A personal life section might be good? Or a section where the shifting relationships are better described? As to me that H.D. and Bryher kept being a couple while changing husband and lover is north a section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Enzyme inhibitorEdit

Notified: TimVickers, Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, talk page notification 2020-12-13

This was noticed near the end of 2020, there is a bunch of problems with the articles. Unsourced sentences, the images are laid out messily, the writing needs a overhaul. There are a lot of issues with this article that I don't think will be fixed. GamerPro64 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reordered a few of the sections, corrected a few inaccuracies, improved the image layout, and have added a few citations. I will add more as I find time. Any additional problems? Boghog (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Definitely looks improved from the previous version. Gonna need another take from someone more seasoned with medical articles at least. GamerPro64 04:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
@Boghog: I am not a medical expert (maybe SandyGeorgia can suggest a couple of editors to take a look at this?) but I'll give some general thoughts below as a non-expert reviewer. I noticed that there's lots of paragraphs that either do not have citations or do not have one at the end. When I write historical bios, I typically require a citation at the end of the every paragraph, minimum, to verify the preceding information. I'm not sure how it is with MED articles, as there are formulas involved, so instead I will post some of these paragraphs without citations below:
  • There's a couple of paragraphs that do not have citations that concern me. One place is the "Types" section (under "Reversible inhibitors"): uncompetitive inhibition has a citation at the end of its paragraph but the other do not. What is verifying the information in the other three paragraphs, and should there be a citation at the end of them?
  • Under "Quantitative description" there are paragraphs between formulas that are not cited. I am confused about which sources are verifying this information. Is there a way that citations can be added to these paragraphs?
  • The first paragraph in "Measuring" does not have citations. Is citation 33 verifying this information?
  • The first paragraph in "Applications" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
  • The second paragraph in "Antibiotics" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
  • The first paragraph in "Pesticides" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
I hope this gives a good start in things to consider. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720 for your comments. I am gradually adding more citations to the sections that you mention. Under the Quantitative description section, the second half of the section was added after the the article was promoted to FA in this edit, is fairly technical, and the only support I could find was in a predatory source. Prehaps it would be best to delete this material altogether. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not have the subject-area expertise to comment on what should and should not be in the article, so I will defer to other's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There is too much text uncited that should be cited, inappropriate use of bolding, and while I am not easily frightened by biomedical topics, I can get no sense from the lead of ... anything. The lead needs to be brought down a level, into plainer English, less jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks SandyGeorgia for your comments. Most material is now supported by citations, inappropriate bolding removed, and the lead has undergone signficant copyedits, so hopefully it is now more accesssible. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read through yet.

  • Is interfers British spelling?
  • "For example, in the Lineweaver–Burk plots at the right, ... " nothing at the right ... so a complete read-through is needed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the lead to make it more accessible for laypeople and corrected some minor misspellings and whatnot. Surprisingly, „interfers“ is not (yet) accepted British spelling. But I daresay it will be someday, as a posher variant of gofers — looks better on a résumé, no? ;)
I also clarified the text regarding the Lineweaver-Burk plots, to make it easier to recognize which diagrams are meant and how they illustrate the type of inhibition (competitive vs. non-competitive).
I've also done a quick scan through the article to find mistakes, but not yet a thorough read-through. Willow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I am going to be traveling for my son's wedding, and won't be able to follow progress on this nom for several weeks, but on a quick final glance I see:

  • Paragraphing in the lead makes no sense and it is still not lay-reader friendly.
  • WP:CITATION OVERKILL ... maximum reaction rate catalyzed by the enzyme) and Km (the concentration of substrate resulting in half maximal enzyme activity) as the concentration of the enzyme's substrate is varried.[2][4][5][6][7]: 132–167 
  • Still some text that is uncited that needs citation.
  • Still some MOS:BOLD wonkiness.
  • A complete read-through is needed.

GamerPro64 I won't be available to help bring this one over the line. Perhaps you can enlist Graham Beards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for your constructive comments. Concerning the lead, for context, it should brefily put in context what an enzyme is and why it is important, but perhaps it could be trimmed back a bit to focus more closely on inhibitors, and that might make it a bit easier to digest. Concerning the single bolded term that is not in the lead sentence, covalent reversible inhibitors is a redirect, and hence is an allowed exception to MOS:BOLD. I will work on adding more citations to other parts of the article and remove citation overkill. Congrats to your son and enjoy your trip! Boghog (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I can follow from iPad, but can't do much to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think all the concerns raised above have now largely been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Just one note in passing. Above it was suggested that we need a medical review. However, with the exception of the Enzyme_inhibitor#Drugs section, this article is more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Solar SystemEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes this guy reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that and thought about removing it, but he does appear to be a subject-matter specialist [8], so I set it aside for the moment to work on more pressing troubles. It can probably be removed as redundant with the JPL website that's currently footnote 1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Removed now (though I wouldn't have a strong objection to adding it as an external link). XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've gone through and applied various fixes and made refinements to the content and references. All tags have been addressed. It looks like XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane have been doing the same. Hopefully it's back close to FA quality now. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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

This YouTube video here: [9] from 3:47 – 4:20 shows a good graphic about the Solar System's composition. What else do you guys want me to add? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's CabinEdit

Notified: SouthernNights, Rjensen, Jmabel, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject United States, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Women's history, WikiProject Women writers, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues RetiredDuke brought up in February have not been addressed. The biggest issue for me is the significant uncited text in the article. (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. As the article's original author, I agree the article needs a cleanup with more citations added. I'm willing to do that. However, the next few weeks are really packed for me. Any way we could hold off on this two-week process until after the holidays? Or alternately, any way some other editors could help out? I essentially haven't edited the article in nearly 10 years and will need some time to sort out issues and fix them. As a side note, this has been listed as one of the most vital literary articles on Wikipedia and it would be a shame to have it removed from FA status without an attempt to address these concerns.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree completely it would be better to improve the article to FA status. @WP:FAR coordinators: would it be possible to put this FAR on hold until January as requested above? (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Many thanks. I'll have time to work on this after December 21 or so. I can likely sort out these issues with a week of research and editing. And as a final note, the article was originally promoted to FA status thanks to the amazing feedback of Adrianne Wadewitz, one of the best literary editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Since Adrianne sadly passed away far too young, I'd like to work to keep this article at FA status in honor of her original feedback and help on it.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to leave here on hold till then - we've left others open for 6+ months before. and if anyone else wants to chip in before then....bonus.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No edits, reinstated FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I had a personal issue which prevented me from finishing my work in a timely manner. That said, I've done a ton of research and will try to integrate that into the FAR process. My apologies for not getting this done when I said I would. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've now cleaned up and reworked the article per the issues originally raised (summarized here on the article's talk page). This included editing the entire article, updating and adding new sources, deleting original research, and much more. Let me know what people think. I'd originally done the research for all this back in December but then didn't have the time to make the edits. I'm sure there's more work needed on this article b/c it's so large and complex, so if people see something share it here. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    Update: Although there has been a lot of improvement thanks to SouthernNights edits, there is still considerable uncited content that will need to get referenced or removed. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    Also, @RetiredDuke: re original list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Publlications section has a lot of stubby paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I've inserted all of the requested citations in the article (or, if the unsourced statement couldn't be supported with a reliable citation, removed the statement). I've also gone through and re-edited the article to smooth out and clean up more of the prose.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Any other changes needed to keep the article at featured status? --SouthernNights (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issues still present:

  • Citing 19th century sources such as "J. E. Dunn (August 31, 1896). "About Uncle Tom's Cabin: A Louisianian Says Meredith Calhoun Was Not a Model for Legree". The Washington Post." Not only do such sources not meet the high-quality sourcing requirement, a recent scholarly source could tell you what the current view is on various theories.
  • There are other questionable sources cited such as
  • Page numbers needed for some books cited
  • The references section needs cleanup and a consistent citation style, but the substantive sourcing issues should be resolved first. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed that dated citation and added citations to all the requested places. As for the references using a consistent citation style, is there a bot we can use for that, or is there someone with expertise in this area who can help?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
There are still other 19th century sources cited:
  • "Parton, James (October 1867). "International Copyright". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 6, 2009."
  • "Old Uncle Tom". Weekly Arizona Miner (Prescott, Arizona). August 2, 1878. p. 1 – via Chronicling America.
  • "Oberlin and a noted resident". Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York). January 12, 1885. p. 4 – via
  • Edwards, J. Passmore (1852). Uncle Tom's Companions: Or, A Supplement to Uncle Tom's Cabin: Being Startling Incidents in the Lives of Celebrated Fugitive Slaves. London: Edwards & Co. pp. 75–77.
  • "From the Boston Traveler". The New York Times. Vol. XXXI, no. 9616. July 3, 1882. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
There is no bot that can fix the citation issues, all that one has to do is pick one citation format (I recommend {{sfn}}) and make sure the article consistently follows it. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
If you can bring the article to a place where Buidhe is satisfied on the sourcing, and everyone else is satisfied with prose, I am willing to help standardize the format. I don't have time to undertake that work until/unless everything else here is squared away. Please ping me if/when we reach that point. My preferred style would be to move to sfns on books or for very long journal articles where page number citations are needed, and leaving everything else in ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for sharing this info and for your help on this. As an FYI, it'll be a few days before I can make a new round of citation updates b/c I'm swamped with other work. Once I get this new work completed I'll let everyone know.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the other 19th century citations and replaced them with modern ones. Any other places that need citations either added or updated? If not, okay if we move to standardizing the citation style across the entire article?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe if other concerns are addressed, I can work on citations. SouthernNights are you OK with sfns on all book sources, but ref tags on everything else (that is, those that don't need short notes with page nos)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what to say, although I don't see anything egregious in the current version, literature is not the main area I edit so I don't feel confident in asserting the content has no issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
What I want to know at this point is, if I spend an entire day cleaning up citations, am I going to find that I was cleaning up an FA that was never going to be salvaged anyway. I recognize you can't definitively make a declaration at this point, but if anyone knows of any deficiencies in the article now that would prevent it being kept as an FA, I'd appreciate knowing that before I work on cleaning up citations, so my time is not misspent. (And SouthernNights, since you haven't responded, if you don't have a preferred citation style, shall I use my preference, which is easier for me?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I don't have a preferred citation style so I'll use whichever you prefer (meaning I'm okay with sfns on all book sources and ref tags on everything else). Buidhe, my work at Wikipedia has mainly focused on literary topics and I heavily researched the update to this article for the FAR. I feel very confident the article's content is solid and will hold up for years to come.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
List of citation issues
  • In the Bibliography section, we need ISBNs for the version of the books that the page numbers are provided for.
  • The page ranges on Lott are too broad for verification; SouthernNights, once I'm done (and you will see now how easy it is to locate the sfns for Lott and change the page numbers as needed, use p for one page and pp for a range) those need to be narrowed down.
  • Wilson: is the text cited to the Frontcover, or is there a missing page number ?
  • I am moving sources that are not used to Further reading: those will need to be checked and pruned.
  • There are missing page numbers on books.
  • You mentioned that Awadewit had helped on this article; her early work contained original research. Is this text verified by the source, or is a conclusion drawn by the writer? We need a page number to an independent source that makes this claim from this author: "The novels either implied or directly stated that African Americans were a childlike people[100] unable to live their lives without being directly overseen by white people.[page needed][101]"
  • Some laxity in sources making this slow work: is Rosenthal the editor or the author? There was a missing "A" on the book title, but without an ISBN, I can't be sure what we're looking at.
    • From this, it appears that Rosenthal is Editor, and all of the Rosenthal sources should be citing a chapter. If so, I need the chapter info on each Rosenthal citation to write the sfns correctly. Marianne Noble, "The Ecstasies of Sentimental Wounding in Uncle Tom's Cabin," from Debra J. Rosenthal (ed.), A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Routledge, 2003, p. 58. The remaining Rosenthal citations all reference Rosenthal's intro materials, not specific essays.
  • The article says the Tompkins book is In Sensational Designs, but Worldcat says it is Sensational Designs ...
  • Similar to Lott, the page ranges on Tompkins are too broad for verification and need to be individually adjusted.
    All corrected except this one: de Rosa 2003, On p. 121, de Rosa quotes Tompkins 1985, pp. 122–146 that Stowe's strategy was to destroy slavery through the "saving power of Christian love". In that essay, Tompkins also writes: "Stowe conceived her book as an instrument for bringing about the day when the world would be ruled not by force, but by Christian love.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I am seeing a bigger problem ahead: none of the journal articles cited list page ranges, so without looking each one up, we don't know whether those page ranges are too large for verification. And, they aren't easily looked up, as they are also lacking DOIs or any sort of ID. Journal articles with broad page ranges need specific page numbers, as with books.
  • Some of the Appiah Gates page nos are 44, and a bunch others are 544: please check that that is not a typo.
  • There is a mixture of citation styles, so I have templated the lot to create consistency.
  • There is a sourcing that needs scrutiny as to high quality for an FA; hard to tell what they are, consolidating list:
  • "Stowe acknowledged in 1853 that Henson's writings inspired Uncle Tom's Cabin.[20][21]" The first citation does not fully verify the text ( "A last instance parallel with that of Uncle Tom is to be found in the published memoirs of the venerable Josiah Henson..." ... a parallel between is not the same as one having inspired the other), and the second is not freely accessible for verification, so I have added a request quote.
    Removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Eight hours, and I have not finished the citation cleanup; stopping for the night at the "Reactions to the novel" section, will finish another day. There are a number of obstacles for this article to retain status: the almost total absence of ISBNs, several places I had to place maintenance tags, and the article quality is variable, with patches of poor sourcing and prose that is not at FA standard, or both. It will take more than SouthernNights and my citation cleanup for this article to retain its star. Mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have finished converting all that I can do; the journals are only partially done, as specific page numbers are needed on many of them. SouthernNights, here are samples of how the journal citations need to be fixed, with the full page range listed as a source, but the specific page number supporting the text used as an sfn: Nichols, and Jones, only a two-page article, so page nos not needed.

From the list I left above, the ISBN work is the most daunting, and I can't help on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I'll dig into the these issues this weekend and see what I can do. However, I may not be able to address all this over the weekend. As for the ISBNs, according to citing sources that is optional for books. Why are we trying to add all the ISBNs if they're optional and the books can be looked up with the info already provided?--SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    There is no hurry. On books that have more than one edition, we need to know which edition the page numbers are cited to, and that comes with an ISBN. It's kinda hard to verify content if you're using page numbers from the wrong edition of a book :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also, SouthernNights, Nikkimaria may have a more generalized answer to the query about ISBNs; she is more up on that than I am. And, it's equally important that you break down some of the long page ranges to something manageable, that the reader can actually verify (on both books and long journal articles). Now that an sfn system is place, that should be easier to do, as you just have to change the page nos on the sfn p= or pp= parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    In addition to helping to determine editions, ISBNs also allow for more easy access to full text / locating print copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • As an FYI, I have major non-Wikipedia projects due, so I may not be able to get to theses item for a week or two (I was overly optimistic when I said I'd have time this weekend).--SouthernNights (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    SouthernNights any plan now for continuing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. I'm finishing up my non-Wikipedia work that's under deadline. I'll have time middle of next week to return to the article. I believe I can resolve the remaining issues in a day or two once I have the time to get into it.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Good progress made; the list above needs to be reviewed, and there is still one citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I still have more work on the article but it may be a few days before I can finish.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think all the issues have been resolved, but if I missed anything let me know. The only thing I didn't change from the citations lists above was to remove the University of Virginia's Uncle Tom's Cabin and American Culture: A Multi-Media Archive as a citation. This is an incredibly reliable and detailed resource, being edited by a professor at the University of Virginia's Dept. of English with funding for the archive provided by both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. As further proof of this multi-media archive being a reliable source, it has been cited a number of times in academic literature. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, AleatoryPonderings, Barkeep49, Indy beetle, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: SouthernNights has updated this 2007 FA to bring it to modern standards; as you have time, might you read through and suggest if there are any issues remaining? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is still issues with citation consistency. Some journal refs are cited using sfn referencing, others are inline. Suggest converting all to sfn with specific page numbers.
I will work on those (was waiting for SouthernNights to finish). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I've moved all journals to sfns and indicated where page nos are missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The characters section is not entirely sourced.
Are the lead citations necessary? Is this info cited in the body or not? (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I can work on the character sourcing. And yes, I believe we should have the lead citations even though the info is also cited in the body b/c the manual of style says the lead should be "carefully sourced."--SouthernNights (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend a higher-quality source than this archived article for the claims about Josiah Henson in the Sources section. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
What does "Tom and Eva begin to relate to one another" mean? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I resolved all the new issues that were raised. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Nice work, SouthernNights! From this diff of the changes you made, the Vicary book needs to be standardized to the same format as the other sources (does it need a page no?), and you need to use p for a single page number and pp for a range. Could you adjust those faulty ps and pps? I won't be able to review for at least a week; perhaps others will look in as you finalize the changes here: @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. I just made those corrections you mentioned. As an FYI, the Vicary source is an online reference, not a book (the American National Biography Online from Oxford University Press is a subscriber-based online resource). But I changed this source's style to the cite web style we already used in the article. Will that work?--SouthernNights (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    I can give this a read through soon. I read the book in high school, we'll see how much I remember I guess. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, HF! SouthernNights, you're in good hands with the other reviewers here. As I will be away at a wedding, the @WP:FAR coordinators: can consider me satisfied once B, HF, Z and AP are ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    I've started work on FAR talk page. Hog Farm Talk 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    I've finished my read-through. Just have a few content/prose questions and one concern about image licensing (I don't think the Babb movie poster meets the non-free content guidelines). Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
A late response to the ping: the content seems fine; a comment on the structure. The last 4 paras of "Literary significance and theories" - i.e. the theories - seem a bit out of place where they are. I think they'd fit better with Major themes. (If they are not all "major", perhaps a Themes section with Major themes and Theories as subsections? Just a thought.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • All edits and suggestions have been completed. Are we good to go with the FAR? --SouthernNights (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    I hope to be able to read through later today; Hog Farm is on a break; @Olivaw-Daneel:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    The themes section looks good now, but just noticing it isn't summarized in the lead; style and literary reception aren't, either. (Looking at the article history, the lead is largely unchanged from the 2007 GA version, at which time those 3 sections were not in the article.) Can it be reworked to cover those sections? A more minor comment: I don't think lead citations are needed unless the material is controversial; even then, 3 refs after a sentence seems like overkill. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep; my concerns have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Chicxulub craterEdit

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

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

A more thorough review of the article:

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

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

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

Green children of WoolpitEdit

Notified: Drmies, talk page notification 2020-04-15
Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Q28 and/or buidhe, please also notify other major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Buidhe when you have to complete the nominations for another editor, you can add their name so it doesn't look your nomination thusly: {{subst:FARMessage|Green children of Woolpit|Q28}}. All parties have not yet been notified. ~~~~
Drmies is listed above as notified, but I see no notification on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm completely uninvolved, but I've been notified. Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have some concers re close paraphrasing and over-reliance on certain sources. I gather from the FAC that no spotchecks were done, which I find a bit bewildering. Anyway, let's have a look:

  • Article: In a modern development of the tale the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die; in this version the children's green colouration is explained by their having been poisoned with arsenic. Fleeing from the wood in which they were abandoned, possibly nearby Thetford Forest, the children fell into the pits at Woolpit where they were discovered.
  • Source: In what seems to have been a recent development of the story […] the children are identified with the familiar "Babes in the Wood" […] According to this version, their green coloration was due to arsenic administered by their wicked uncle; fleeing from the wood where they were abandoned (perhaps nearby Thetford Forest), they stumbled into the pits at Woolpit
  • Article: The second is that it is a garbled account of a real event
  • Source: Others accept it as a garbled account of an actual occurrence
  • Article: Ralph's account in his Chronicum Anglicanum, written some time during the 1220s, incorporates information from Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, who reportedly gave the green children refuge in his manor, six miles (9.7 km) to the north of Woolpit.
  • Source: Ralph of Coggeshall's version, in his Chronicon Anglicanum (English Chronicle), was not finally written down until the 1220s; but it incorporated information from a certain Richard de Calne of Wykes, who had reportedly given the Green Children refuge in his manor.

I also think it's kinda weird that no pages are cited for journal articles (which can have rather long page ranges, like Clark 2006, Lawton 1931, Lunan 1996, Orne 1995, Walsh 2000, etc.). --Q28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Q28, not citing pages is not "weird"--it's pretty common practice, certainly for those who use only the regular citation templates and cite articles in notes and books in bibliographies. It would be nice if the "cite journal" template had a parameters for the pages of the article and the actual citation. To appease I made some tweaks to get the paraphrase further from the original. But that "no spotchecks were done"? It is more likely that the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence: the reviews were done by seasoned editors. AGF please. And remember that "close" in "close paraphrase" is a matter of opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • So, Q28, this wasn't you, this "I"--it was User:Eisfbnore, who tagged me on the talk page over a year ago. I don't remember if I saw this; if I did, I must not have thought it of great concern. It's funny that you would pretend here to complain about close paraphrasing when of course the entire text is copied verbally from someone else; perhaps Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is of use here. But beyond this particular case (Eisfbnore, please see my edits to the article), I have some questions about competence, given for instance this edit and the reply to this edit by User:SandyGeorgia--thank you, Sandy, for pinging me. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Drmies I don't believe Eisfbnore will see your ping; they have had two different accounts since then. See here and followup at their user talk and Iri's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Also, Drmies I've gained some experience with the {{Copied}} template because of the CCI on WikiProject Cyclone, so if you'll let me know where the copying within came from, I'll make those additions to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • You know what, SandyGeorgia, a little bell is starting to ring, and I'm wondering if that backstory doesn't have something to do with it on my end--that I saw the ping, saw where it came from, and ignored it--that's a thing I can see myself do. Anyway, their edit was this; they never returned to the matter, and they certainly didn't more formally notify me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If we can address the copying within, this FAR can probably be closed. Please let me know from whence it came, and I will do the proper edits to reflect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
          • SandyGeorgia, it's in my previous response. This is what Eisfbenore posted, and Q28 just copied it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
            I misunderstood; I thought you were saying that Copying within was responsible for the close paraphrasing, and that the text came from another article. Sorry for the distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll put things more nicely; Q28, beginning FAR reviews based on other opinions is fine (like how multiple users will bicker about an article and someone else unrelated will join the discussion and WP:AFD it), but since this is direct pulling proper credit needs to be given. If you didn't know about this, that's perfectly fine, and I apologize for our stink-eyes. If you acknowledge and apologize, we can move on (and actually fix the article while we're at it). Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Refs, I don't know about all this above^^^ but I made a start on one of the citations to provide page numbers (as someone pointed out above, to avoid overly broad page ranges per V). As my editsum makes clear, I have indulged mightily in citebanditry as I know no other way. Although it's worth noting that the article already uses {{sfn}} for some sources anyway, so I fail to see why others have to be in a list of stuff. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can see, the sources with the page ranges are Lawton 1931, Briggs 1970, 2X Clark 2006, Lunan 1996 and Harder 1973, all of wot I got. SN54129 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone still has to address the close paraphrasing/copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above  :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC, I'm not seeing any other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There are possible comprehensiveness issues though, the article does not mention J. H. Prynne's The Land of Saint Martin which is apparently based on the green children story? Or other works? We mention The Man on the Moone but not the role the green children played in that work? This was just based on a quick Google Scholar search. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Ealdgyth and Drmies: if one of you could address Buidhe's comprehensiveness concern, we might get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
      • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the alert. I'll get on it, but I don't have access to any of those articles. Plus, I have to say, that what appears to be a rather obscure three-page poem doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned here, by analogy with WP:COVERSONG. And who is J. Anderson Coats? I see it--but again, how important is this? When I get access to those reviews, I'll give them a sentence. The bigger thing, about Godwin, I'll have a look at the article and see if there is material that should be included. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      • SandyGeorgia, I'm looking at these citations. I see that User:Serial Number 54129 was wondering about them, and has started to move some references to another system. I think, if I'm looking correctly, that has led to some inconsistencies with punctuation. I suppose, then, I need to do all of them with that "sfn" template. Originally, we had books in the bibliography and articles in the notes, which I believe was Malleus's system. I'm also adding page numbers when I can. Sandy, this is a useful thing I'm doing, right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        I'm in favor of moving to sfns; don't worry about punctuation inconsistency-- that is the kind of manual work I am happy to clean up for you, more important is that those who have the sources get the content work done and page nos provided. Ping me when you are ready, and I will do any work needed for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Drmies, Ealdgyth, and Serial Number 54129: I have standardized the citation format. Could someone specify explicitly what is missing? If I must, I will get the sources myself; it's time to get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry—got distracted—can get involved with sources tomorrow morning UTC—apologies also to Drmies for ignoring you—and apologies for fecking up your references. SN54129 20:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, that was just me, being unnecessarily grouchy. If I can't wake up to find Putin gone, at least I can hope for some FARs to move along! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC; no edits since mine on 4 March, at my wit's end for how to get this one moving. FARC does not preclude further work happening, but need to keep this moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC unless someone is willing to address buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Some months ago, I attempted to standardize the citation style after Drmies made considerable edits (see discussion above). Drmies had used the citation template, rather than cite templates, which do not use trailing punctuation, so I removed trailing punctuation from the short notes. Subsequent edits have re-introduced cite templates, short notes with trailing punctuation, and a mixed citation style. Which style is wanted? My preference would be to remove the citation templates originally used and go with cite templates, so we don't need the silly |ps= none on every short note. At any rate, one style needs to be decided on and implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed, Sandy (although she may not know that yet!), and I agree that the |ps=none is wholly unnecessary, and just adds to to the cite bloat. SN54129 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
      • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
        • SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
          Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
          Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the difference! I think I made two additions to the Sources list myself, and looking back, one of them was using Cite book, and the other used Citation because I copied and changed another publication by the same person which used Citation. Please do all you can to standardise it. John O'London (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging John O'London as they've been working on the article lately. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Some of the page ranges are too broad; specific page nos. needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
  • What are the correct pages here? Is it one page (13) or a page range with a typo?
    Hartley-Kroeger, F. (2019). "Review of The Green Children of Woolpit, by J. Anderson Coats". Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 73: 13–13. OCLC 760196674. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I can't help with Bulletin of Center for Children's Books - but what are the specific other ones with page ranges 'too broad'? [Sorry - just spotted Simpson/Roud, Harder and Duckworth!] (Thanks for all your hard work!) John O'London (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
      I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
      Does anyone have immediate access to the Duckworth reference (Australian Literary Studies 26.3-4) to check the page number? I can't access the 2011 volume online, and at the British Library you need to order it up two days in advance - and I'm not planning to go there again soon. Thanks to DrKay for sorting out the Oxford dictionary refs! John O'London (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR discussion - I came late to this - the Green Children article was on my watchlist, but I wasn't aware of the move to FAR until after User:Serial Number 54129 added a considerable amount of text to the article on 30 March - in fact expanding the article by 50%. The questions surely became, were the extensions of the same FA quality as the original, were they properly integrated with the original, and does the expanded edition warrant FA status. Much of the discussion took place before that expansion. User:drmies and User:SandyGeorgia had already begun making improvements. I've done quite a bit of work on the expanded version since, checking and adding refs, occasionally tweaking the language to make it (I think) clearer. But I've avoided any major rewrites, even when I think the text as-is might be misleading. To declare an interest, in real life it's a subject I've done a lot of work on - I know too much about it, and have my own opinions about the subject; I also regard some of the sources cited as unreliable, not worth citing, or just plain wrong (all three are true of Varner 2006, for example!). So I shouldn't be editing it at all! Could some disinterested party read through it? - for example, does it now meet the first of the FA criteria? Is it really "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Does it now have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? John O'London (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

and with apologies, I should obviously have restricted my tinkering to the extra 50% text added by Serial Number 54129, rather than the original FA text. But he had inadvertently introduced some errors in the original text, like changing the date of the Duckworth ref from 2011 to 2006, and I didn't always distinguish between what was original FA and his additions. It was the extent of his additions, which seem to have been accepted without query in the middle of an FAR, that encouraged me to think what I wanted to do would be acceptable.John O'London (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Your arguments alone would warrant delisting, if you provide more detail on issues of sourcing and accuracy. My earlier "Move to FARC" declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I may answer at length later - but here's a pretty typical example of what happened when I started editing it. Serial Number 54129 had introduced a new section heading 'Music' - under it they included (taking the text from the original FA article) Glyn Maxwell's play Wolfpit - which is a verse play without music. So I simply moved it to the previous section, which contained various other literature. But then I read what the original FA article said about it "In 2002 English poet Glyn Maxwell wrote a verse play based on the story of the green children, Wolfpit (the earlier name for Woolpit), which was performed once in New York City." No, Maxwell wrote and published his play in 1996, and it was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that year. So I found a source to cite for the 1996 performance, and changed the date - but also left the ref to the NYT review in the original FA for the later NYC performance (there've been more than one in NYC - and no doubt others elsewhere). This is what I meant about whether the additions were properly integrated and the need to consider the whole of the new version. John O'London (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Yellowstone fires of 1988Edit

Notified: User:MONGO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire, talk page notification 2021-12-05
User:Hurricane Noah, I have added the talk page notification diff for you; please be sure to add it on future noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous unsourced statements, grammatical errors, image stacking, needs alt text, lacks more recent academic literature on vegetation recovery and updates to fire management. NoahTalk 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Common decency should dictate that before an article goes to FAR, some time should be given to address any talkpage comments made; Hurricane Noah allowed near zero time for this to happen. With that said, and despite the overt rudeness of this behavior, I will address the issues in this article. I ask for clemency as to the timing as I will need 45-60 days to finish this.--MONGO (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR per MONGO until 28 February at least, and then re-evaluate for ongoing progress and the possibility of a further extension. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR per Sandy, to give MONGO a chance to tidy this one up. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This article is being worked on, albeit slowly. It will take me another 45 days to restore it as many of the ref URLs are dead so have to go through them individually.--MONGO (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      I see MONGO has started in here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
      MONGO could you provide an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      A little over halfway through updating refs.--MONGO (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      Refs all updated. Need a bit yet to cleanup wording and add any further developments such as recovery, etc.--MONGO (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Christopher C. Kraft Jr.Edit

Notified: MLilburne, WikiProject Spaceflight, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Virginia, Pritzker Military Library WikiProject, 2021-12-21

I am nominating this featured article for review because much of the prose is cited to the subject's autobiography and those citations should be replaced with secondary sources. There is also inconsistent citation formating, short paragraphs and some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to use the subject's autobiography and there is no need to replace it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I think better phrasing of my thoughts above are that if there is a high-quality secondary source that verifies similar information, it should replace an inline citation to Kraft's biography. If Kraft is the only source that can be used for the information, then it should not be replaced. I am concerned that 38 of 88 inline citations in the article are to Kraft's autobiography, including some opinionated statements like, "Not much happened in Gemini or Apollo that didn't either originate with us or with our input." (which is according to Kraft) and "Both astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions," (which could be rephrased to "he thought that the astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions"). I searched Kraft's name in WP:LIBRARY and found lots of sources about Kraft, particularly sources written around the time of his death in 2019. There are also articles on the Apollo missions that are FAs that might contain high-quality sources that mention Kraft. The concerns primary sources do not negate that there are uncited statements and short paragraphs throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Quite so. I'll have a look at the article and add required references and fix up the short paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I have done a pass through the article and removed bare URLs, added citations for everything is cited, tidied up the references, consolidated short paragraphs, and added some additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: - Would you be able to give this a re-review and see what you think about the state of the article now? Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Z1720 mentioned elsewhere that real life is keeping them off of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I will try to give this a review at some point over the next few days, then. Hog Farm Talk 04:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


  • "He also discovered that wingtip vortices, and not prop-wash, are responsible for most of the wake turbulence in the air that trails flying aircraft. This finding was forgotten and later rediscovered independently" - it may be best for independent sourcing on this
    Added an independent source, and the original paper, which is still available from multiple sources, and still frequently cited. I doubt his assertion that it was forgotten; it has been cited in many aircrash investigations, the earliest one I found being in 1957, and the so-called "rediscovery" cites it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "A pivotal experience for Kraft was the flight of Mercury-Atlas 5," - source is the Time piece itself; needs a better source for this part
    Re-sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "and responsibility for some of the others is still being debated" - need a better source than Carpenter's letter
    Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "but under the circumstances there was little he could do" - a non-Kraft source for this?
    Re-wrote this to make it clearer that Kraft was in Houston.
  • "Called into Mission Control by Gene Kranz almost immediately after the accident" - sentence fragment
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - Any thoughts? I'm comfortable with most of what is being sourced to Kraft, but I think there are definitely a few places where a non-Kraft source would be best. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Thank you! I'd say I'm probably comfortable with this one being kept if you are. Hog Farm Talk 21:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not ready to let this one through yet (1a and 1d concerns). I had to make too many prose adjustments,[10] and since my prose is not stellar, that means we need a real prose guru to go through. I'm also not convinced we have given due attention to the Kraft Report or worked in scholarly research. The original nominator has not edited the article since 2007, while journal publications about the effect of the Kraft Report on subsequent disasters continued, and without incorporating that, the article isn't neutral. Our content on the Kraft Report is unchanged from the version that passed FAC in 2007, so a fresh look at the newer scholarly sources might be in order. We should discuss whether all the praise in the lead is balanced by whatever ends up at Christopher C. Kraft Jr.#Consultant about the Kraft Report. It seems like significant controversy. At minimum, we can mention the "controversial" Kraft Report in the lead. Hopefully by the time someone addresses that, Z1720 will be back and can look at the prose; I found a lot of redundancy on only a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 this sentence isn't working: "The panel's controversial report, known as the Kraft report, recommended that NASA's Space Shuttle operations should be outsourced to a private contractor, and that NASA cut back on the organizational changes intended to improve that were made after the Space Shuttle Challenger accident." Can it be split in two after private contractor, and I can't tell what the second part is aiming for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Split it and reworked it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
From Organizational Learning at NASA : The Challenger and Columbia Accidents:

McAfee (2006) especially champions joint-authoring tools such as blogs and wikis because "the intranet platform shifts from being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated interlinked work of many". He cites the experience of Wikipedia to suggest that such forums can offer highly reliable information.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The lead is much better now (can't figure out why McAfee 2006 is quoted above though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


I am returning to semi-active editing, so I'm giving this article another look-through. Overall, I think this article is very close to a keep. I made some edits; please review them to ensure that they are appropriate for the article. The images need alt text per MOS:ALT. The infobox mentions the ASME medal and the Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, but these are not cited in the article body. Likewise, I think there are some awards in the awards section that could go in the infobox. Once these concerns are addressed I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added those awards to the body. MOS:ALT conformance is not required at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
MOS:ALT is an explanatory supplement to a guideline. The specific guideline that requires this is MOS:ACCIM #1. The featured article criteria #2 says featured articles should follow style guidelines, wikilinking to the manual of style, of which MOS:ACCESS (and the ACCIM subsection) are part of. This is also something that has been required of FACs for a while, so I assume that it is required for all featured articles. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Alt text has never been required of FACs. Nor has strict MOS conformance. Only those parts of the MOS specifically mentioned are required. MOS:ALT is only an explanatory supplement. It is not part of MOS:ACCESS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
You are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Alt-text and accessibility are part of MOS, and all of MOS is part of the criteria. There was a long period when alt text was most certainly enforced at FAC, but that was when we had multiple editors (no longer with us) who were very well versed in how to write alt text and willing to do it for those of us who weren't. WP:WIAFA clearly states, as it always has, that articles must comply with WP:MOS (not just some parts of MOS, although it highlights three parts with the words including). And alt text is mentioned twice at MOS.
But no part of MOS has ever been strictly enforced at FAC, and alt-text enforcement has fallen out of favor simply because ... most of us don't know how to write alt text correctly, and there are few editors who can do it. While it may not be a reason to hold up a FAC or FAR, it is surely something we can do out of thoughtfulness for readers who need it. Worse than the lack of alt text is the way almost NONE of the maps in ANY articles at FAC or FAR comply with MOS:COLOR (note the new images we added during the Great Fire of London FAR to bring it in to compliance) ... we can only ask and hope that editors will be considerate of visually impaired readers, although enforcement of this part of MOS at both FAC and FAR is spotty. Certainly, articles are passing both FAC and FAR today with maps in breach of MOS:COLOR, as an example. Alt text falls into the same category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I won't fail to support an article's featured status only on alt text, but if some kind soul, who appreciates all the work some of our editors who use screenreaders do in here, should add alt text, it would be most appreciated. If I knew how to write alt text, I'd do it myself; I would never present an article at FAC without alt text. Meanwhile, the prose is still spotty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
It's an art form. I have added ALT text. The worst part of MOS:ACCESS in my opinion is the requirements it imposes on tables. Instead of adjusting the table table template, it imposes complex CSS markup requirements that most editors cannot perform. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's no fun to try to comply with ACCESS, and am so happy when someone else does it for me! But I hold the work up in appreciation for all that Graham87 (who uses a screenreader) does in here, and try to do what I can (which may not be much!). Thanks for doing that, Hawkeye7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7 for adding the ALT text, and for SG for clarifying the very muddy waters of MOS:ALT. I've taken some time away from this article to hopefully bring a fresh perspective to it. I made some copyediting changes, which I encourage others to review and change if desired. My only concern is with the following sentence: "Kraft commented in his autobiography that, with the choice of his name, "some of my life's direction was settled from the start"." I think this is referring to Kraft sharing a name with Christopher Columbus but I'm just guessing here. Can this quote be briefly explained in the article? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The book says:

My father considered his name onerous; it had forced him to survive teasing as a boy and the occasional jibe as an adult. But in that glowing moment, it hit my mother just right. I was only minutes old and now the burden was mine, too. Can a name influence the course of a life? I've had most of a century to ponder that question. I think with a name like Christopher Columbus Kraft Jr. some of my life's direction was settled from the start.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to incorporate the above quote into the article, so I'll drop this concern unless someone suggests wording. I'm ready to declare keep with the understanding that as more secondary sources become available, the article will try to reduce the number of citations to Kraft's autobiography, where appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


Watching from a prose pov, its doable; repetitive and tacked on here and there but now (from the work above) not fatal. Have made trivial edits, and can give another run through tomorrow night. Am leaning keep. Ceoil (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ps, obv using autobiographies as sources (per discussion above) should be avoided like the plague. Ceoil (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning keep, although I don't have much familiarity with the source material. Hog Farm Talk 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we told this (is there some later relevance)? "His father died on New Year's Day in 1957, aged 64." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

My inclination is that that can be removed, but I'll wait to hear from Hawkeye in case they're aware of some relevance. Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Some people like to add (birth-death) to the subject's parents, and when it gets queried or rewritten we get something like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Checking on this recent edit, I see that award is mentioned elsewhere in the article and could be all covered in the Awards and honors section. And from viewing just the Awards and honors section, it is apparent the article has not yet been copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: Mahanga and 13 others, WP Deserts, WP Protected areas, WP Russia, WP Antarctica, WP Climate change, WP Geography, ‎talk page notification 2021-11-29

I am nominating this featured article for review under the "comprehensive" criteria, because although some work has been done it seems there are still things which need fixing - for example whales and toothfish mentioned at Talk:Antarctica/Archive 3#Funk's look at biodiversity Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned copyediting, sourcing, and cleanup needs in the 2021-11-29 notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up as many of the issues raised by User:SandyGeorgia and User:FunkMonk as possible, but there's surely more if anyone's willing to take another look. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Have done a bit of copyediting, but there's surely more if anyone's willing to take another look. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting I'm keeping an eye on the edits, and happy to help with the climate and sea ice sections. Femke (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I've taken a look at the images and the duplinks (now mostly sorted) as well as the sources, the latter needs more work on formatting, etc.. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I would be happy to help with source formatting—though it is a bit concerning that there aren't more book length surveys used (and the ones that are used and hardly cited). Aza24 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aza24: Agreed, now wading through the books and journals cited to format them properly, with a view to using the better ones more than they are at present. I'd like to move across to Harvard formatting at some point. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchell125 (talkcontribs)
I would warn against moving to harv formatting for an article of broad interest. For climate change, it's been an utter horror, having to explain to new and intermediate (and many experienced) users how their contributions need to change to be compliant with FA criteria and always having to change the formatting into harv. Femke (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Femkemilene, but that's not been my experience with FAR. Once the swap over is made (a large job for one editor, but not too difficult), it shouldn't be too big an issue. Citing the same book with different pages (something I can see being done here to improve the citations) is a lot easier for me, and maybe others, if the harv system is in place and there's a list of Sources in a separate section. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
I'm mostly struggling with shoehorning scientific papers and news articles into the harv style. Books are of course fine :). Femke (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I do think harv formatting for the books is a good bare minimum. I get Femke's reservation, but if we do it for the articles we can get a better view of the article's current state. Anything without page numbers might be too messy to use harv fmt for. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The way I do it is to use the pages of the papers and to omit newspapers since they are seldom the best source available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with how harv formatting deals with citations without an author byline, can it represent them adequately? Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
In climate change, we put the newspaper in there rather than the author for all news articles cited. Messy and time-consuming. Newish editors get confused. We're now transitioning towards non harvnb for journals and news articles.
That said, the transition to sfn was helpful to get a better sense of sources, and prune less reliable ones out, like Aza said. Femke (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Will do the move to sfn for books next week if nobody objects, and have mentioned this in the talk page. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Next—remaining repetitions in the text, and redundant words. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Femkemilene, looking at the structure of the article, the History section mentions terms introduced in the Geography section further down (Antarctic Circle, Transantarctic Mountains, Mount Erebus, Ross Island). What do you think about swapping the two sections around, as is the case with North America and South America? Imo it would make sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it could work if 'history of exploration' is moved all the way before population. In that way, we have a nice switch between non-human and human.
A unrelated change of structure could be to put 'economy' and 'research' together under a 'human activity' header. That way, we'll get rid of the weird level-2 header of astrophysics. Femke (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Nice idea, I'm going to be bold and go ahead. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Femkemilene: Text now moved and titles amended, please add subsection titles if you think these are needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Next—replacing any unreliable sources, adding citations where needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nearly sorted. AM
Next—tweaking the Bibliography/References sections to ensure the formatting is done consistently. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Prompted by this talkpage post, I had a look at the article and believe it to be deficient in its coverage of the non-mainland areas of Antarctica. Coverage in the geography section is limited to a See also and a brief mention of Ross Island/Mount Erebus, and there is a single mention in Climate of Signy Island. I would not expect a huge amount of space to be devoted to them, but the Geography section should at least be clear that (as with other landmasses discussed as continents) islands are often considered part of the topic in question, and perhaps go into where those islands are (eg. a note on those above and below the 60th parallel). Islands are covered in the Biodiversity, History of Exploration, Population, and Politics, but this comes without a general coverage of the topic at an earlier point. CMD (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

CMD, I don't agree with your statement. We have a separate article Antarctic, which covers the continent + surrounding islands. Increasing the coverage of islands here just blurs the line between the two articles. (wanted to flag this up, as I've just deleted the sentence about Signey Island in Climate). Femke (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
That looks like a very poor quality fork which should be merged and redirected. We don't exclude Great Britain from the Europe article or Madagascar from the Africa article, the same in terms of comprehensiveness applies to this article. CMD (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell nobody has ever formally proposed a merge before - so I have now at Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Sorry I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hold, work underway Thanks everyone for all your endeavours so far and glad you are still improving this very important article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Unless anyone has any serious objections I think Close without FARC Chidgk1 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Chidgk1 see my notes; have you read through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not there yet; a complete read-through is needed. Just glancing in quickly I found basic issues: [11] Please have a look at prose, wikilinking, and paragraph structure. "In the mid-1970s, a coalition of international environmental protection organisations launched a public campaign to pressure governments to prevent mining in Antarctica." And ??? A one-sentence paragraph left hanging. "Overland sightseeing flights operated out of Australia and New Zealand until the Mount Erebus disaster in 1979, which killed all 257 people aboard." Aboard what? I have to click out to find out what Mount Erebus disaster refers to. There is a maintenance tag in the Ice sheet loss section. Prose is not at FA level throughout (although some sections are OK), and attention to flow and paragraph structure is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  • The first child born in the southern polar region was a Norwegian girl, Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, born in Grytviken on 8 October 1913.[note 7] Why a note and not a citation?
  • Emilio Marcos Palma was the first person born south of the 60th parallel south, the first born on the Antarctic mainland, and the only living human to be the first born on any continent.[179] This is a 1986 source; no as of, no idea if this person is still "the only living human". (I see there was more detail in the pre-FAR version.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Femkemilene are you able to dig in here? The writing needs a top-to-bottom review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Devonian Wombat are you able to help with any of the remaining issues I mentioned above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to bring this one over the line; unless someone can, it should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the necessary prose skills to rewrite the article's prose to be FA quality, though I can fix some of the more basic problems. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know the Guild of Copyeditors have never been through it - should I ask them to have a go at the prose? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe wait to see first what Femke says? Sometimes with GOCE, you get someone not accustomed to FA-level work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I hope to have some energy this weekend for this. Femke (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I've slowed down to a stop on this one. Other articles and real life have taken over. Best, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
OK, Femke, I will hold off, but unless someone is able to bring this over the line (which means a solid copyedit top-to-bottom), we may need a move to FARC. Please let us know, since Amitchell125 seems busy and no one else has stepped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Don't want to squander Femkes talents on a mere copyedit so have asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Antarctica Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry my prose and knowledge of the topic aren't good enough to take on this article; take care to keep an eye on GOCE edits, depending on who shows up, as not all of them improve the prose without affecting source-to-text integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy here. While the GOCE does good work, a specialist really needs to work on ones like these, or you run the risk of introducing unintentional errors or breaking source-text integrity. Fixing prose isn't something that can be simply fixed by a copyedit a lot of the time. Sourcing and prose need to go hand-in-hand, and if you try to work on prose without being super familiar with the sourcing, it can introduce issues if you're not familiar with the material. Hog Farm Talk 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Another argument to skip GOCE this time is that they have a large backlog. We don't want to hold up the process for two months. Anyway, with my long COVID, I'm trying to avoid doing more difficult things on Wikipedia, so a copy-edit is just about perfect. Femke (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
OK I'll leave it in the queue for now just in case as you are right they won't pick it up for a while, and you can cancel it (or ask me to) if/whenever you think is the right time to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Going into more detail here. Fixed the [note 7] thingie. I'll try to address some of these later, but don't count on me

  • The lede is a bit short. It does not mention climate change, the ozone hole, tourism
  • The 200 mm does not seem repeated in the body / is uncited
  • The -63 degrees seems not repeated in body
  • The United States Exploring Expedition is only mentioned in the lede
  • In 2004, a potentially active underwater volcano was found in the Antarctic Peninsula by American and Canadian researchers -> do we know more?
  • temperatures there can reach -90 -> this seems to contradict the fact that -89.2 is the lowest temperature measured. Might be true, as satellite measurements don't count for records.. Will need to check source quality

(reviewed up to Climate). Femke (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Failed verification for precipitation amounts
  • First two sentence of second paragraph lack adequate sourcing
  • The sentence "there is some evidence ..." is cited to a 2008 source, which is too old for such a statement. I've spent some time finding a newer source, but no success.
  • The paragraph of ice shelf collapse is too much focussed on the 2000-2010 decade; also, we have another paragraph about ice shelves later on
  • The loss of mass from Antarctica's ice sheet is partially offset by additional snow falling back onto the continent -> Weird start of sentence. What loss?
  • East Antarctica, which occupies most of the continent, is dominated by accumulated snow moves flows the sea as ice. -> clarification needed
  • The ozone hole section doesn't explain why ozone depletion was highest over Antarctica (I think it's some katalytic reaction on atmospheric ice crystals that only form there??)

(reviewed up to biodiversity) Femke (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The first sentence of biodiversity is attributed to a person, not a great start. Study from 2014. Now accepted wisdom?
  • The snow petrel is one of only three birds that breed exclusively in Antarctica -> I think this source only supports the statement that the snow petrel breeds in Antarctica
  • Plant growth is restricted to a few weeks in the summer -> failed verification
  • no citation for statement about algae

(reviewed up to History of exploration) Femke (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Update: I'm willing to try and take this over the finish line, but it'll take some time. I'll be on holiday till the end of the month, so bear with me. Femke (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Copy-edit by GOCE done. It was a new editor with a good eye for underlinking, and for unclear/overly technical statements (some of the other aspects needed reverting). I'm still working on improving source quality / checking text-source integrity. I'm going at a glacial pace, and may need another 8 weeks to finish. Femke (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Update Almost there. I would like to work a bit more on the research section (why omit all Latin Americans research stations, but include smaller Western stations?). The issues I've been tackling have been quite extensive (as expected from an old article such as this): quite a few factual errors removed, many instances of sources not checking out. As such, I would very much welcome comments from others before I'm comfortable having this FAR closed. User:FunkMonk: do you have time for another look over the biodiversity section? Femke (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Josquin des PrezEdit

Notified: Turangalila, Aza24, Toccata quarta, Antandrus, Jerome Kohl, WP Composers, WP Bio, WP Christianity, talk page notification 2020-12-17

This is a 2007 FA whose main editor has not significantly edited Wikipedia since that year. After I pointed out some fairly minor issues on talk last year, Aza24 and Toccata quarta raised more significant problems with comprehensiveness, synth and OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: - I see that you've done a bit of cleanup - do you think that this one is fixable? Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the music section (definitely the most complex section) is so thorough already, I do think it is possible. I would need some time though, as I'm juggling many things right now. I'll see what Josquin books my library has; it really just needs a lot more information from Fallows, which is by-far the best source on Josquin's life. Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for trying; keep us posted on your progress! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 when you get to this point … References and further reading might be separated, and some short-note citations have final punctuation, while others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I've done the former just now. I've gotten a hold of Sherr 2000 and Lowinsky 1976; I've also just now requested Fallows 2020 from my library. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Aza24 are you still thinking this is doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes! The library sent me the book I needed today, so I will take a crack at it this weekend and report back. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There were some edits yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for such a delay. Unfortunately this week I have some other WP stuff higher on my plate but after that (by next weekend) this will be at the top of my list. I have all the sources necessary and have been reading through them for some time now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: Aza24 has been editing the article this week, and edited the article yesterday. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 do you have an estimate on timing for finishing up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a good question—I'm probably not taking part in TCC so I can focus on this. I'm thinking in the next two weeks I can get most of the preexisting issues fixed up, and add the more obvious omissions. After then I'll try to draft a new reputation section, which will need to include quite a bit of new scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

27 April Update Thanks everyone for their patience, I'm going to give an idea of my general plans from today onwards (for mainly myself, but also so others know progress is being made and areas for improvement have been identified).

  • Life section
    • Need to take another look at the 1st paragraph of Birth and background; last paragraph of Ferrara; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life
    • Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left(might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)
    • The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
    • The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
  • Music
    • Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
    • Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
    • 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
  • Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
  • What has been done already:
    • Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
    • Entirely new Portraits section has been added
    • Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
    • Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
    • The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
    • Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
  • My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. KennedyEdit

Notified: nominator has retired from Wikipedia. Talk page notice 2021-11-16
Nutez, please notify anyways, and also other active editors and potentially interested WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Nutez notifications have still not been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Belated notifications on 2021-12-29; please hold in FAR for at least two weeks from this date. Fritzpoll, WP:BIO, WP California, WP Death, WP Elections, WP Politics, WP US, WP Crime SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it has prose and style issues. There are tags for {{colloquialism}} in the text, and many paragraphs have no citation whatsoever. The article does not reflect the most recent discourse surrounding the assassination. It does for instance not relay his son, RFK jr.'s thoughts on the murder, or the debate around Sirhan Sirhan's tentative parole by Gov. Newsom.[12] Nutez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - Additionally, I do not think that all of the sources here are high-quality.
    • I don't see why a PRNewswire press release should be used for anything related to this subject. There are guaranteed to be much better sources than that for basically any aspect of this event
    • " "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ABC News Live Coverage". YouTube" - no evidence that WP:COPYLINK is met here
    • WP:RSP lists Democracy Now! as a bit of a marginal source, there should be better sourcing available for an FA on this topic
    • " Pruszynski recording & analysis by acoustic expert Philip Van Praag Archived " - published by, any reason why this is high-quality RS?
    • "Levin, Robert E. (1992). Bill Clinton: The Inside Story. S.P.I. Books. p. 60. ISBN 978-1561711772." - anyone familiar with this author/publisher? If this is the right linkedin page for the publisher, then the publisher apparently has single-digit employees

There's also a goodly number of reference formatting problems, with one source being simply "California State Archives" and a number using "Archived copy" as the title. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I can maybe try to improve the article, give me a day or two to begin assessing it/finding better sources/formatting references/fixing other issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Anyone have thoughts on whether the caption "Robert Kennedy campaigns in Los Angeles, 1968 (photo by Evan Freed)" ought to have the parenthetical italicized? I'm always confused by {{xref}} and similar. (please use {{reply to|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, the article is salvageable! After taking a look, I think it can be saved. This a very important topic, and there are many sources which can be used. I did some minor copy-editing, and am in the process of re-arranging sources (separating books/journals/scholarly works from contemporary news sources). The main issues here is with the sourcing, there are few paragraphs poorly sourced/not sourced. Various YouTube citations and news articles can be replaced by more reliable works. I'll work on the article and will try to improve it to FA status by December 31. @Nutez, do let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Update – January 2, 2022: I have re-organised and more importantly, expanded the "Background" section, using WP:HQRS. Broadly, these were my edits, (which includes edits by few other users as well, to whom, I am grateful!) Willing to work rest of the article, if it can be held in FAR till then. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria : I am trying to get this to present FA status. I found this June 17, 1968 issue of Newsweek magazine. It has many images which may be useful for the article. It was published between 1926/77, and I don't see any indication of copyright on the magazine issue. Would {{PD-US-no notice}} apply? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Most of those images are credited to other sources - you would need to track those down in order to determine status. Some have a copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    Kavyansh last edited the article on 2 Feb. The article has improved considerably but I still see referencing issues, at a glance #59, 77, and 104 in this version of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Yeah, I am still interested in fixing the article. I'd say more than half work is done. I'll appreciate if you could hold it in FAR for few more days. I tried to add scholarly sources, and will replace the sources mentioned by Buidhe with better ones. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Kavyansh.Singh: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    Pretty well, but bit slow. This is now on my top priority list ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: Kavyansh.Singh made significant edits to the article on March 15. Is work continuing? Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Following on this and this, a thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check will be needed if this article heads towards Keep territory, in addition to a rigorous copyedit. That said, I don't see it heading for Keep territory. Here is the Background in the version that passed FAC; the current version is bloated, veering off-topic, and over-quoting. The prose is not at FA level: sample "In 1964, polls showed that various Democrats wanted Kennedy to be Johnson's running mate in the presidential election." Similar bloat and prose issues are found in the next section. Overquoting here, and this is not FA-level prose. Unless more editors plan to step in here to do address the original FAR concerns without bloat and marginal prose, I think we should be in Move to FARC territory, to keep this on target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:
  • The sources used in the article with associated page numbers are mostly from the FA version a decade ago (promoted by you). I don't know how the two FACs you link are important here to demand a "thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check". I have no objections at all with the check being conducted, but what significance does that example of FACs of 2021/22 have on a 2008 promoted article?
  • As for the prose, I very much appreciated anyone copyediting the prose. But for the off-topic background section, I disagree. That section now is not off-topic. Everything in the first sub-section is important:
    Visit to Palestine - important as Sirhan Sirhan was from Palestine and that visit made impact on Kennedy's views on Israel (later mentioned in the article)
    JFK's election and RFK as Attorney general, cuban missile crisis - important as to specify what led to RFK becoming, from President's brother to national leader and an influential figure which ultimately led to his presidential campaign.
    JFK assassination - important to mention as to specify, so called, "Kennedy curse"
    Johnson and RFK senatorial campaign - important as (1) to specify RFK's relations with LBJ (2) Kennedy mentioned his views on Israel in a speech in senatorial campaign.
    Vietnam War - important to specify why a Democrat would run against a Democrat president in primaries.
  • As for the second sub section, it specifies events that lead to RFK becoming the front runner and ultimately being assassinated. Please let me know what else is "veering off-topic", because in few political articles as this, background is very important. Suggesting to see Cross of Gold speech#Background.
  • I will still work on the article, but if others feel my work (from this version to this version) is not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, feel free to move this to FARC.
Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources.
On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today.
All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
No apology is needed; of course I have some bad promotions (no comment whether this one is, as I haven't even looked closely enough to say). On the issue of whether there is too much background, removing text is easier than adding text, so I'll hold off on that until sourcing and prose is examined. Since you seem aware of the work still needed here, I will debold my declaration to move to FARC, and check in later. But when serious copyediting is needed, I'm not the best person to do that work; I am always willing to do some copyediting, but I recognize my own prose limitations. Perhaps when Z1720 is back up to speed, they will look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Back to the article, I'll appreciate feedback on the following issues:

  • The FA promoted version of the article was very concise (around 16,500 characters). Since then, lot has been added about "Assassin's gun" which I feel is not much useful. Who brought the gun, who did he sell it, how did it reach Sirhan, what was the cost, who "paid the $6 balance" has nothing much to do with the assassination. I could just remove much of that section, but would that be seen as compromising with comprehensiveness?
  • I don't feel File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg in any ways contribute to the article. It is a non-free media (again, added after the 2008 promotion). Would that be fine to just remove it.
  • I need feedback on sources. For FAs, we need "high quality reliable sources". In my previous FACs, I have been told that contemporary reliable news reports are fine to use as long as they are not used to support any evaluative claim. Because the initial FA version uses few issues of Time magazine's 1968 articles, almost all used to support the events of the assassination. I don't think that would be an issue, but just to be sure, could anyone more experienced take a look at sources in the Works cited section (only), few cleanup is still needed in the "References"

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My feedback:
  1. The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.
    Checking further, the entire section was added by one editor, and the "who Wrote That" tool indicates it has been relatively untouched in the three years since (including the whopping 11-sentence quote). In other words, no FA-level eyes were watching this article. The upshot seems to be to debunk conspiracy theories; that can be done without the blow-by-blow detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. I am indifferent on that one; someone may find it relevant.
  3. On those contemporary sources, I believe they are typically OK unless (and this is the key) more recent scholarly sources cover the material better or differently. This is where knowledge of all sources comes in to play (survey of the relevant literature). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Few are available at Google books and have preview. Rest journals can be accessed through WP:TWL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR breakEdit

Okay, so as of April 25, 2022, I feel that as long as content and source reliability is concerned, I have tried to fix most of the issues. It has also been updated with the most recent information. There may still be few prose issues and old verifiability issues. At this stage, I'd appreciate others commenting on the state of the article and what could be done to improve it. For comparison:

  • The FA promoted version — August 12, 2008 : this
  • The FAR nominated version — December 20, 2021 : this
  • Current version — April 26, 2022 : this
    • Changes since nominated for FAR : this

Pinging everyone associated with this FAR: @Nutez, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Sdkb, Buidhe, and Z1720:Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead is a long way from featured-quality prose and will need a lot of work; I haven't read beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Those minor issues have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: Dwaipayanc, SBC-YPR, Yashthepunisher, Chandan Guha, Ssbbplayer, Antoshurel, WP India, WP Cities, WP Nepal, noticed in March

As noted by RetiredDuke, the article has some issues with source-text integrity, spots tagged as needing citations, and some datedness, as well as significant MOS:SANDWICH issues and a generally excessive number of images. Hog Farm Talk 06:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler: - I see some work has been done here, does it look like this one can be rescued in the course of a FAR? Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. Unless there is an active group of editors maintaining the page, it is impossible to maintain the FA status, even if it was well-deserved once upon a time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I had never really edited the article before I edited the lead a few weeks ago for coherence. What are the issues? Are they mainly citations? It looks like a nice, informative article. I don't see why it can't retain its bronze star. Are you willing to grant me the month of January? I don't know anything about the topic but I can fix the sourcing and the source-text integrity. Can I interpret the last to be poor paraphrasing of the cited text? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: - the main issues are a few citations needed, some spots where the citations don't fully support the text, and some spots where it looks like the material does not fully reflect recent stuff, such as the tourism section containing nothing after 2015. At least on my web browser, there's some layout issues in one spot, with almost an entire screen's view of whitespace between the climate subheading and the table. And yes, this can stay open as long as work is actively occurring. Hog Farm Talk 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll take a stab at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hold in FAR, per User:Fowler&fowler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
About half of the images need to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler:, no progress since before your comment, shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
user:SandyGeorgia Please allow me until the end of the month, i.e. January. It's true I haven't thus far demonstrated the kind of energy I may have implied, but I do want to get around to fixing this article. It's just that I was waylaid by some others. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
No prob, just going down the list and checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Fowler&fowler:, for taking the initiative. I am extremely short of time, but will try to help in the process. I do have the book mentioned below (Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environments), but don't have the time to read and use it :( Thanks again, --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Providing references, inline citations. Sections towards the end of the article (culture, education) not done yet. Certainly needs more time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Dwaipayanc, happy to see you on this! Time is allowed at FAR as long as progress is being made. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've begun to work on the article. Sorry, it has taken longer than I had thought, but I'm improving the pictures while I read the history and will start rewriting the history sections in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is MOS:SANDWICHing pushed down into the third section of the article, caused by the excess of images in the infobox; perhaps lose a row of images in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

One edit in ten days; shall we Proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sandy. Thanks for the timely reminder. I'm reading and making notes. I will start editing again in a day or two, starting with the history section. PS Please note that this is a vital topic. It is also viewed a lot. The article receives an average of 1100 page views a day. The recent TFAs on the other hand, have received an average of 50 (outside of the TFA day itself). If TFAs are a sample of what is coming into WP:FA, and if an article exists to the extent it has readers (some version of Schroedinger's cat), it means it takes three weeks of the inflow to match Darjeeling, and were it to constitute the outflow, something substantial would be lost (though I am by no means conflating popularity and vitality). To my way of thinking, this article is worth saving. My style of working is not linear. I don't know what else to say. Please allow more time. But please keep reminding us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Per my analysis, we are in violent agreement, but please keep the work progressing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:) Amazing, how similar. Will do. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There were some edits today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Active improvements still happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm updating the history with more modern sources. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Update? Three months in, and the images in the article are at an alarming state of MOS:SANDWICH, making the article hard to read. Demographics (at least) are still outdated (I haven't checked other sections). And maintenance tags are still in place. Much more than History needs to be addressed here; F&f are you sure this is salvageable? Is there a plan for how/who/when to finish up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yes it very much is. Very sorry, but I was caught up with major POV issues arising from the Kashmir Files. Sorted out just this morning. All my attention will belong to that page. As for the plan, it should be done before the end of April, probably earlier. What if we revisit this April 15? If it is still in the doldrums, I will be the first one to propose the boot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    OK, thanks (it's depressing to view the FAR page weekly and find a growing number of unaddressed nominations; at least having a timeline helps know which are abandoned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: I am not attending the History section or images (that is F&f's department); however, I am trying to take care of many other sections. As for demography, the data is actually not really outdated. The data from 2021 census is not available yet (census 2021 has been delayed due to the pandemic). So, the data there is the most recent reliable data, from 2011 Census of India. There is some data from 2001 census as well in that section, to give a comparative view. Once census 2021 data is available (perhaps in next 18 months), the 2001 data would be removed, 2021 data will be added, and 2011 data will remain (in a modified form) for comparison.
Also, I have tried to take care of most citation needed tags, updated sections such as civic administration, civil utilities, culture. . Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
That makes me feel better as I know precious little about the demography or civic utilities ... and have only recently boned up on the history. Thank you @Dwaipayanc: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Also I will replace the maps I have added in the history section with fewer but more focused maps Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Now April 15, could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Nikkimaria. The maps are done, which for me was the hardest part. The history section is moving along. And I have quite a few notes ready to transferred to the article. We not in the doldrums. We'll be done by April 30, and maybe before. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is still a distressing amount of image clutter, and a gynormous infobox pushing well into the article, that contains lengthy text, a large map, and multiple photos. I haven't looked at content because of the visual assault effect from the infobox plus images. I assume this is still being addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

On my screen, it's awful with a giant amount of empty whitespace in the seismology section. As a note, there only seems to be freedom of panorama for sculpture, not 2D work, in India, so File:Proposed map of Gorkhaland, 2009, Singamari, Darjeeling.jpg may not be freely licensable. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead will increase in size, so the infobox will loom less large, relatively speaking. I'm using the local big boy for the model. Its lead is 400 words, compared to 250 for Darj. Part of the problem is that West Bengal, the Indian state in which Darj lies is thin and tall. I don't mind showing only part of the state but don't have a good feel for how others will react. Boston barely shows the Cape. Please give me something to model on. The image sizes are large only because it is easier for me to see them; they will be reduced to standard, thumbnails. The proposed map I'm happy to remove. In five minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd take a multi-factorial approach; lose the map in the infobox, lose one row of the images, and lose some of the content (postal codes, really, Wikipedia is not a phone book). We can't have it all, and don't need it all ... there is just way too much happening in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
:) I have no feeling (nor sympathy for the phone book). Just didn't want to step on toes. Will do Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Reduced image sizes in History. How do they look? The Geography bit I'm clueless about. I mean in the mechanics of displaying. Not sure why the year-round temperatures are needed, but they seem to be a common feature of city articles. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm almost done with the British Raj section of history; the last two parags are not mine and will change. I have texts line up for the postcolonial history section which should be done in a couple of days. Eventually, once the text is in place, I'll make it a little less discursive, more encyclopedically deadpan. Beyond history, I have sources and some text lined up for the modern tea-industry in economy; flora and fauna; and food (the picture with the little obligate carnivore bottom left is my addition) I've never been to Darjeeling, though I have to some other parts of the mountain ranges South Asia is blessed with. Have to run now, but these comments are very useful, and welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Fowler&fowler: - I see you're still actively working on this - what's the status? It looks like, among other things, the referencing has improved and the layout is much better, although the school children image is making the references do weird things on my screen. Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
      Yes, I am back. I will give it that one last spurt to restore the article's shine, including fixing the picture in the last section. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


Notified: RJHall, Drbogdan, Huntster, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notification 2020-12-18

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted by Sandy Georgia on the talk page a year ago, the article has major issues including lack of citations (18 cn tags), bloating, some use of questionable sources and MOS issues, such as too-short paragraphs and MOS:LEAD. In addition there are some issues of balance that look questionable to me, for example the section on Martian canals is longer than that on exploration of Mars. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed some citation needed tags, and I will plan to fix more of them. Blue Jay (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see work is progressing. The article is jammed up with too many images, poor layout, and MOS:SANDWICH, and I wonder about WP:CITATION OVERKILL. Are all of those statements with three and four citations controversial and do they really need so many sources? Looking at the TOC, it appears that the article could be better organized. There is a section heading to house one map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed all citation needed tags. Blue Jay (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The citation needed tags have been fixed, which is a great start. The article still has issues with section imbalance, updating, overcite that are flagged with cleanup tags. The issues raised by Sandy above (eg image overkill) are also still present. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I've removed the interactive Mars Map section, since the Topographic map seen in that section is also seen in a previous section. I will start with trimming and reducing the number of images.

This article has pretty serious issues throughout and will need sustained attention to bring it to standard. Here’s an example:

The seasonal frosting of areas near the southern ice cap results in the formation of transparent 1-metre-thick slabs of dry ice above the ground. With the arrival of spring, sunlight warms the subsurface and pressure from subliming CO2 builds up under a slab, elevating and ultimately rupturing it. This leads to geyser-like eruptions of CO2 gas mixed with dark basaltic sand or dust. This process is rapid, observed happening in the space of a few days, weeks or months, a rate of change rather unusual in geology – especially for Mars. The gas rushing underneath a slab to the site of a geyser carves a spiderweb-like pattern of radial channels under the ice, the process being the inverted equivalent of an erosion network formed by water draining through a single plughole.[133][134][135][136]

That passage is cited to four 15-year-old sources— probably dating to when the article was featured. If this info about gas and geysers has borne out over time, it should be possible to upgrade the citation to one current source. This problem is throughout the article, and a top-to-bottom rewrite may be needed to save this star.

Sources will need serious checking, too, eg: Olympus Mons". ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Source: "the dark streaks— called recurring slope lineae (RSL)—which appear seasonably are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"
Article: "that dark streaks called recurring slope lineae (RSL), which appear seasonably, are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"

Given that the source is The Week (Indian magazine), unless we can establish backwards copying, this is definitely a copyvio. So this one needs looked at very carefully. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Insertion occurred in these two edits, so yes it's a copyvio, but this looks like a one-off incident. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, but now we have to check the rest of that editor’s edits and do the revdels. You’re the admin :) Or should I ping in Diannaa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thankfully, they only have 102 edits, of which some only consist of blatant MOS:OVERLINK. Will look into that soon - if I find enough issues, I might see about getting a mini CCI started. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I will ping Moneytrees for advising on the RD1 here - I've been told that revision deletion is not always best for small violations that affect large swaths of page history, and in this case we have a single sentence and would have to delete over 360 revisions. Hog Farm Talk 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm I wouldn't revdel that, since as you said it's a small violation and would affect too much of the page history. Moneytrees🎄Talk/CCI guide 05:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the Exploration section also include all the proposals for future Mars missions or an overview of all of them? Blue Jay (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Blue Jay I would support merging the "Spacecraft visitation" and "Astronomy on Mars" sections under the "Exploration" top-level heading. This can cover future plans, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Alright, I will try merging once enough support is made for that decision. Blue Jay (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
      The entire TOC concerns me per WP:WIAFA 2b, but I am unable to find any WikiProject Astronomy guideline about how to structure a planet article. When you are finished with the rest of the cleanup, The great Jay, I hope that a better rationalization of the overall structure can be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Should the last paragraph for the martian canals be on the habitability and life section? It doesn’t really mention any observations of canali. Blue Jay (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - Update: I've done some work on the sources, replacing dead sources and old sources with new ones, and replaced questionable looking sources with more reliable ones. I'll try my best to address the source problems. Blue Jay (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work! The excessive amount of images, and the convoluted Table of Contents (WP:WIAFA 2b) are also a concern; the article could probably benefit from a better structure. I haven’t looked at your new sourcing yet, but did see:
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Blast" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Greek Names of the Planets" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "theoi" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "phobos.html" is not used in the content (see the help page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I've gotten the four cite errors corrected. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where are the mentions of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia? These are major impact features and amonngst the largest in the Solar System. Elysium Mons also probably also deserves a mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I added a mention of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia in the impact topography section.Blue Jay (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Current issues:
    • The Future section still cites sources from 5 years ago or more. It should only include up to date information.
    • The article, especially exploration section, suffers from WP:PROSELINE issues. Not all the mentioned incidents are necessarily WP:DUE in this article.
    • The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs per MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I've done some work on the exploration and future section, though I'm having a hard time finding any recent sources about Obama's plan to send people to Mars in the 2030's. Blue Jay (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
      • I have restored the fifth paragraph to the lead. A careful read of WP:LEAD will show that this trend (seen at FAC) of reducing leads is not supported by WP:LEAD, and there are many more characteristics of a well-written lead than the forced restriction to four paragraphs. I am not saying this lead is well written or complies with lead, but a five-para lead for an article this size is not what ails the lead. Please focus on the substance of what LEAD says, and if doing that requires five paragraphs, please use them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Are there any other sections that need updated information other than the future subsection of Exploration? Blue Jay (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There are WP:proseline issues in Exploration section. I wonder if it is necessary to mention absolutely every exploratory vehicle intended to go to Mars? Or just mention the most important ones while explaining why they're important? (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I think we should just mention the important ones, as I think some could be put in the Exploration on Mars article. Blue Jay (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Been wondering, should the volcanoes, tectonic sites, and holes sub-subsections be merged as a single subsection? They're all physical features of Mars, after all. Blue Jay (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      I'd oppose this because then the higher-level section might be too long. (t · c) buidhe 09:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The article looks in much better shape now. Do you feel satisfied with it Blue Jay? I wonder if it would be possible to ask someone who knows more about planets than I do to look it over. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't have a lot of experience on this kind of thing, so I'd reccommend asking someone else who has an input on this subject. Blue Jay (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      SandyGeorgia do you know anyone on wiki who knows something about planets and is willing to look it over? (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      Unfortunately, no :( The planet articles were almost all featured last decade, and the WikiProject was strong, but as far as I know, all of the editors responsible for that body of work have moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
XOR'easter and Femke might knows. 2001:4455:364:A800:305D:D13C:2D4A:3283 (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2
Maybe you can ping them for their input? Blue Jay (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Femke says she is suffering from long covid symptoms but I've left a query for XOR'easter in case they are willing and able to offer assistance. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't have time to do more than a spot-check right now (I've a big rewrite project I need to make serious progress on this weekend), but I gave it a read and also left a reminder at the Astronomy WikiProject. I noticed that the web citations aren't consistently formatted; some use {{cite web}} and some don't. Is that a major deal by FA standards? XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your response, XOR'easter. The citations are an issue, but one that's straightforward to fix. Ideally, before I or someone else puts a lot of effort into citation cleanup, I'd rather know if there are any major content issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the proseline issue for the exploration section is the only one to deal with other than the citations, but I'm not sure. Blue Jay (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I remain concerned about the article organization and rambling Table of Contents: the Table of Contents when the article passed FAC may help. The Viewing section as one example, seems very chopped up and may be consolidated to one section, to help flatten the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The Table of Contents appears to be fixed. Blue Jay (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
To handle the proseline issue, I'd zap everything in the "Exploration" section after the paragraph that begins As of 2021, Mars is host to fourteen functioning spacecraft. There's just too much "a press release happened, so we added it here" to sort out. XOR'easter (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Done (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Citation standardization may be the next priority. XOR'easter (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked a few refs and they all had failed verification issues, now flagged in the article :( (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Three out of four "failed verification" tags resolved now, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • OK, I took care of the fourth. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • We still have an WP:EL farm that needs to be cleaned up/trimmed to the most relevant links. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Zapped a few. I'm almost inclined to nuke the whole section from orbit and ask that items only be reincluded if an affirmative case can be made for them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Throughout the planet articles, the images seem to get out of control. Why are they all necessary? It begins to look like a picture book; can an evaluation be made as to why so many images must be crammed in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • What is the citation style? As one example, sometimes the publisher is NASA, other times
  • What makes a high-quality reliable source?
  • The German Aerospace Center (DLR) citation goes nowhere.
    It is apparent that a thorough citation check and cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Second and third sentences of the lead, referred, refers, repetitive; it looks like the second half of the second sentence could be better made part of the third sentence,, with recast wording.
  • The days and seasons are comparable to those of Earth, because the rotation period as well as the tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane are similar. Mars is the site of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any planet in the Solar System, and of Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are small and irregularly shaped. --> ?? -->
    Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any Solar System planet, and Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System, are on Mars. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two small and irregularly shaped moons, Phobos and Deimos. The days and seasons on Mars are comparable to those of Earth as the planets have a similar rotation period and tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane.
  • The latest spacecraft to successfully land on Mars are CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover, landed on 14 May 2021. Define CNSA acronym ... land, lander, landed ... find a way to vary the wording, of just truncate --> ?? --> CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover landed on Mars on 14 May 2021.
  • The Zhurong rover was successfully deployed on 22 May 2021, which makes China the second country to successfully deploy a rover on Mars, after the United States.[22] ... successfully deployed, successfully deployed, repetitive. --? --> With Zhurong on 22 May 2021, China became the second country to successfully depoly a rover on Mars. ??
    OK, stopping there, my suggestions are not likely the best; a copyeditor is needed, and thorough prose review is probablhhy in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Deadlink removed, some prose edits made. I want to let that sit for a bit and see if anyone is upset with the modifications I made to the lede. More thoughts about/work with the sourcing will hopefully follow when I can eke out the time. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I see XOR'easter cleaning up messes right and left. The citations are utterly out of control; have a look at one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
That's modern science for you; collaborations get big. Just be happy we don't ha