Wikipedia:Featured article review

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 review 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 review 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 Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews

edit
Notified: DMacks,Ryboy42, WikiProject Elements, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had two cleanup banners for years now and a lack of updates for issues such as conservation, the potential new molecular compounds, and applications usage. Real4jyy (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real4jyy, welcome! Per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, please make sure to notify the original nominator and main editors about this FAR; you can add that to the notifications above once it's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the banners was superfluous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will comment that much of the updating requested is in the #Extraction and use section. One missing thing is green helium.
  • On the topic of compounds, I think that CsFHeO and N(CH3)4FHeO, are hardly worth mentioning as there are a whole collection of papers on computationally predicted molecules that have not been made. Similarly I don't think we should mention a whole lot of other theoretical molecules, but stick mainly to substances that have been made. So that means that potential new molecular compounds may just need to be pruned and not expanded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: GoldRingChip, Bumm13, Guliolopez, DigitalIceAge, David Fuchs, barrel of cheese, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Apple Inc., diff for talk page notification (2024-02-23)

Issues of adequacy, detail, sourcing, and consistency with other articles about PowerBook 1XX series were raised two years ago. Since then, edits have been made but did very little to resolve those issues, especially within the last few or several weeks. More work is needed before the article would potentially lose its FA status. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Bignole, MatthewHoobin, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 26 May 2024

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the sourcing issues and etc. I'm gonna copy-paste the issues we've discovered from the talk page. As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted before, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26,  37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69,  72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.

At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. We also have a quote box in the reception section, and it is literally cited as a line from an Eminem song. Also, his cameo appearances aren't that considered as "Cultural Impact" and should be at "Other appearances section", but anyway this section is poorly organized. This is not what we want from the FA article. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: CactiStaccingCrane, Nergaal, Headbomb, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Astronomy, [diff for talk page notification]

2006 listing, last reviewed in 2009. As taken note of in the talk page notice from the tenth of May, there are fifteen (and possibly more) unsourced paragraphs and sentences. @ArkHyena: noted that "Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now.", while @Sgubaldo: said that a lot of references were missing different fields. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, the uncited statements generally seem to be the sort of thing that is written in many books (Sirius being the second-brightest star in the sky, etc.), so fixing that up shouldn't be too difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More of a nitpick, but in the 'Observational History' section, it seems to be that there's a tad too many images. I'm thinking the hydrogen-alpha and ultraviolet light ones could be removed or moved elsewhere? Sgubaldo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially addressed this in diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus:

  • A potential concern I had is that the "Celestial neighborhood" section is an except from the Solar System article. However, the latter is an FA article itself, so perhaps this isn't an issue. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the need for much of the current "Faint young Sun" section, as that is more about the Earth than the Sun. What would make it more relevant is a discussion of higher activity levels (stronger solar wind) in the early Sun, but that is currently lacking. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no discussion of solar spin-down. The early Sun would have been spinning much faster than it is today. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related note, there is a statement about, "Recent analysis of SOHO mission data favors a faster rotation rate in the core than in the radiative zone above." However, this is dated from 2007. Subsequent results from SOHO show a significantly faster rate of core rotation: about once a week compared to once a month at the surface. The implications of this can be discussed.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "life" is used rather loosely in this article, presumably referring to the Sun's life span as a "fusor" star. This leads to suspect statements such as, the "Sun today is roughly halfway through the most stable part of its life". I think the most stable part of its life overall would be as a white dwarf. Praemonitus (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,620 K (5,350 °C; 9,660 °F)" What is the need for a Celsius value here? To me it just adds unnecessary bloat. Praemonitus (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed from all of them. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a value in the lead being presented in light-seconds? It is an informal unit that it not widely used. Praemonitus (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the usage in the infobox and lead. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Observational history' section should mention that helium was first detected as an unknown absorption line in the solar spectrum. Praemonitus (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that was added to the "Photosphere" section for some reason. I'm going to relocate it. Praemonitus (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the article does discuss the solar constant, there's no discussion of the present-day net luminosity of the Sun, other than to say it is equal to a solar luminosity. Granted the photonic energy output is mentioned in the infobox, but that should be stated in the article. I think it would be useful to compare it to the net annual energy generated by humankind. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Solar activity" section, there is no mention of the change in solar luminosity due to chromospheric activity. Praemonitus (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Solar space missions" section has a bulleted list of missions, most of which are not of particular interest. I think most of that would belong on the List of heliophysics missions page, or perhaps Solar observatory. That entire section seems longer than it perhaps needs to be. Perhaps it needs to be spun off into a separate Solar observatories in space, then presented WP:SS? Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with moving that list (and potentially more of the section) to some place like Solar observatory. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph on SOHO reads like WP:Puffery. "One of the most important solar missions..." Praemonitus (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a first stab at toning this down. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most cases the image credits can be stripped from the caption, to keep it succinct per WP:CAPTION
  • I'm not sure what to make of these references:
    • Ross and Aller 1976, Withbroe 1976, Hauge and Engvold 1977, cited in Biemont 1978.
    • Corliss and Bozman (1962 cited in Biemont 1978) and Warner (1967 cited in Biemont 1978)
    • Smith (1976 cited in Biemont 1978)
    • Signer and Suess 1963; Manuel 1967; Marti 1969; Kuroda and Manuel 1970; Srinivasan and Manuel 1971, all cited in Manuel and Hwaung 1983

I went through the remainder of the citations and tried to make them consistent and more complete. Beyond that, the article has built up a fair amount of fluffy padding and redundancy that can be tightened up so the writing is more crisp. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, I've worked a little bit on the article. I believe you have the technical knowledge of the subject, while I can do source and reference formatting. I changed the sources to cite book or cite journal templates, and changed some of the references to sfn tags. Would this and any further work I do on formatting be okay with you? Matarisvan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'll notify some other editors and relevant WikiProjects to have another go at it. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, we need a link for the Aerospace Daily article, otherwise any reviewer doing spotchecks would fail the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link from years ago is gone and I don’t think it’s ever been archived, but it’s transcribed in a forum post here, which I’m not sure is considered adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the link here, I can search for it on archival sites. Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the original link. Perhaps search for key words and phrases in that article that's transcribed in the forum post? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to remove this reference, we already have another one (Chong 2016) at the same place. Is that OK with you? Matarisvan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Steve7c8, do you have access to either of Sweetman 1991a or 1991b? I put in these in the sfn tags on a placeholder basis as I wasn't able to get access to them. This is the last thing left to do here, once it is done we can safely say the article is back again at FA level. Matarisvan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Example user, WikiProject Football, [2]
Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications made: [3][4]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about this while adding on the Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the Liverpool and Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC while various editors are adding information to the site, it seems like these are updates of the roster and do not address the concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; two CN tags were addressed but significant issues still remain. Hog Farm Talk 13:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Nishkid64, Coemgenus, Billmckern, Tilden76, Devonian Wombat, -A-M-B-1996-, WP Politics, WP Chicago, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP Elections and Referendums, noticed in December 2023 with prior issues raised in 2015

As originally promoted, this 2007 FA included a number of references to varied sources. However, in 2015, it was discovered on the talk page that essentially the editor just read the Ackerman book and threw in citations from Ackerman's notes, even though those sources did not entirely support the cited content. I ran into a similar problem from this same editor when I rewrote Thomas C. Hindman, another old FA promotion, several years ago. Coemgenus resolved many of the issues in 2015 but the article is still very heavily reliant on Ackerman alone. I also, in December 2023, found that there are still a number of smaller source-text integrity issues and that the citation placement is messed up.

Awhile back, this article was suggested to potentially rerun as TFA with the upcoming Republican National Convention later this year, but I don't think that is a good idea given the sourcing history here. Given my experiences with Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman#Uncited paras/sentences etc, and Talk:Stede Bonnet#Featured article review needed I have grave concerns about the sourcing from any FA nominations by this nominator. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no major edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not write this one, though I have edited and have access to the sources. Is the concern here that some particular sources are inaccurate, or just that there might be problems? I'd be glad to run a spotcheck on the citations and see if it's good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coemgenus - I compared passages to parts of Ackerman several months ago and have found that the big ideas are all supported, but a number of the smaller details are not. I'm also generally uneasy with the content here after my experience with re-writing Thomas C. Hindman, another FA by the same nominator, where the article was based only on one book to the neglect of information in other sources, omitted major information (Hindman being suspended from command for awhile), and contained factual errors (incorrectly claiming that Hindman was present for the Chattanooga actions after Chickamauga), in addition to the sources failing spot-checks. A spotcheck here would be greatly appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Coemgenus: Are you still planning on looking at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, yes, I will look at it this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked at every tenth citation to see if they lined up with what was being cited:
fn.10 -- Hesseltine p. 432 contains the quoted language and the sentiment it expresses.
fn.20 -- Ackerman makes both points on p. 74 and the quoted headline is there.
fn.30 -- Ackerman pp.66-67 does say this.
fn.40 -- Cites Ackerman p. 58 for two points. the phrasing is a little awkward, but it's accurate.
fn.50 -- Cites Ackerman p. 83 for two quotes, both accurate.
fn.60 -- Cites Ackerman p. 91 for three points and two quotes, all accurate.
fn.70 -- Cites Ackerman p. 103-104 for two points, both accurate.
fn.80 -- Cites Ackerman p. 116 for two points. Both accurate, but the parenthetical near the second point wasn't in the source (it is true, though). So I moved the citation to the right spot.
fn.90 -- I had trouble accessing this -- the Questia page wouldn't load. I found the book on the Internet Archive, though, and it's correct.
Since most of those random citations were to the same book, I picked out a few others to check.
fn.53 -- Cites Muzzey p. 169 -- the quotation and the meaning of the sentence are both accurate.
fn.59 -- Cites Clancy pp. 104-105 for two points including quotations. This is the first problem I found. Clancy and Ackerman both cite a letter from Joseph H. Geiger to John Sherman, but where Clancy summarizes the content, Ackerman quotes it directly. The author of this article uses the direct quote, as found in Ackerman, but cites it to Clancy, which is incorrect.
I think this article relies too heavily on Ackerman's book, but where it does so, it does so accurately. Where it cites other sources, in at least one instance, it does not do so faithfully. There's not much to fix here, but it should be fixed. I have nearly all of these books, so I guess I should be the one to fix it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Dippiljemmy, WikiProject Dogs, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of self-published content being used as well as some WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK style content on grooming and training that isn't breed specific, more detail about the latter on the talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Traumnovelle that this article is suitable for a featured article and I thank Traumnovelle for nominating it. It is a well-rounded article on a popular topic. Thanks. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The article is already featured, I'm nominating it due to the self-published and citation needed tag. I think the article just has a few issues that need sorting to retain the status. I notified you due to you having the most contributions whilst still being active on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the editor who did the work to get this article up to featured quality has quit. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, yeah I can have a look and fix up those tags over the next week I think for you. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I think I've sorted out the issues that have been tagged. Hopefully this helps! (Dippiljemmy (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Tail docking claim is still unsourced (I've tagged it).
  • The claim about all Australian states and territories banning it since 2004 is not supported by the source: I've changed it to remove the 'has been illegal since 2004' in favour of 'is illegal'.
  • 'While an Australian Cattle Dog generally works silently, it will bark in alarm or to attract attention.' is still unsourced as the study is about the later general claim about barking and not dogs specifically.
  • The deafness claim was still made to a self-published source: I've rectified it by citing the original study
  • The non-breed specific and guidebook content is still in: If no one objects I will remove this
So overall just the claim about tail docking in the US and how the dogs use their bark whilst working need citing and the guidebook/non-breed specific content should be removed.
But thanks for your help so far, I do think this article can retain featured status with just the above three issues resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the grooming and training paragraphs, only issue that would disqualify this from being a featured article are the two citation needed tags. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: There are some other sections that need citations; I have indicated these with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to add a citation for one, I don't have access to any library sources (both offline and online) currently, although I doubt I'd be able to cite everyone even if I were back home. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popping in briefly -- the best I've been able to find for tail docking is the UKC standard, which states "The tail is customarily not docked, however, a docked tail should not be penalized.", the American Stock Dog Registry, which says that tail docking is "optional", and the book The Perfect Puppy which states that tail docking is "often" practiced in the US. This is searching online sources only, I'm at work and don't have easy access to my books. Doesn't quite support the statement as written, but perhaps something like "In the United States, the tail may be docked, while it is illegal, except in special circumstances, in Australia ...", though this leaves the open question of the tail status elsewhere. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Melchoir, Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, Hawkeye7, WikiProject Mathematics; original nominator not notified as they have been inactive for over 6 years

This is the 1.999...nd FAR of this article. The 0.999...st was back in 2010 and FA status was retained. I placed a FAR notice on the article talk back in January and Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, and Hawkeye7 have done some work on it, but the article has whole sections without citation, amounting to OR; while doing basic math isn't OR, there should be citations to the proofs since they're described as known proofs. Other editors have identified SYNTH in the article during the FAR listing. Hopefully more eyes on this can get it back to FA quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:
  • The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
  • The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
  • In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.
There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; {{sfn}}s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only {{sfn}}s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)
I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been perennially disappointed that this article fails to make contact with modern mathematics. Points that could be made, but don't seem to be:
  • If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
  • Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
  • For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
  • Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
  • Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
  • Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
  • Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.
I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.
Here's some references:
Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days, but let me know if there are particular questions about any old edits of mine. For example, if there's a cited reference that is hard for others to access, and we need the page number or the context of a quotation, I could look it up in my notes. Melchoir (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress being made here? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spate of editing last month addressed the specific concerns that had been raised. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lack of citations in the proofs sections. While WP:CALC says routine calculations are okay, I think those sections ought to have citations to show that they are common proofs in reliable sources. The "Algebraic arguments" section still has deprecated citations. There are also several sentences and paragraphs throughout that still lack citations. For example:
  • The argument here does not need to assume completeness to be valid, because it shows that this particular sequence of rational numbers has a least upper bound and that this least upper bound is equal to one.
  • The first two paragraphs of analytic proofs.
  • Such heuristics are often incorrectly interpreted by students as implying that 0.999... itself is less than 1.
  • These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999...
"Skepticism in education" also has a bulleted list that would be better presented as prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is deprecated about the citations in "Algebraic arguments"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't do what WP:PAREN actually says is deprecated. It uses authors' names and publication years inline to include specific publications in a way that flows with the grammar of the sentence. (Compare this with, e.g., Affine symmetric group, a recently-promoted FA that does the same thing.) And the little blue clicky linky numbers are right there, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RE PAREN. I'm still concerned about the lack of citations throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we worked on this last month, my impression was that we'd ended up with it in a state where everything was, at worst, an expansion of something stated in one or more of the sources, i.e., saying something leisurely instead of curtly but without introducing anything new. Someone other than me should check that, however. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) It was full of cruft, fake infobox, etc. Have merged it into parent article.[reply]

No opinionMerge discussion. • Article just before merge. --RobertGtalk 11:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh496 does not appear to have followed WP:MERGE in any meaningful way, so the merge should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a merge discussion ongoing that seems to be headed for a merge result; will leave this open for the moment in anticipation of a likely procedural delist. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the discussion as consensus to merge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has ended with consensus to merge Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in my limited understanding of the FAR process, I believe this needs a featured article review coordinators to close this discussion. I have requested one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. If this is the wrong process, then please do the correct process instead :) . Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the merge takes place while this is an FA? Or after? Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The FAR will be closed after the merger is complete. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: So when will the merge be done? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever someone gets around to doing so. That will not be me; I've busy IRL and have essentially no interest in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody apparently cares to merge, I've just redirected the article to the proposed merge target. If anything is deemed necessary to add to the merge target (which is already over 13,000 words long), it can be taken from the article history. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've been reverted by Jpeeling (FWIW, there's been a consensus to merge since the April discussion, not just the 10-day old AFD). Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

  • 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
  • 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

  1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
  2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
  3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

  • Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
  • Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

  • For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
  • For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1

edit

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

  • Edward and the Jews;
  • Edward and Wales;
  • Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
    In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
    More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
    Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

edit

Could I suggest that @Serial or others take a look at the content I added about Edward's Jewish policies as a first step? These are to be found at:

  • Edward I of England#Diplomacy and war on the Continent: short sentences about his fall and the expulsion in Gascony. (On Easter Sunday 1287, Edward was standing in a tower when the floor collapsed. He fell 80 feet, broke his collarbone, and was confined to bed for several months. Several others died. Soon after he regained his health, he ordered the local Jews expelled from Gascony,seemingly as a "thank-offering" for his recovery.)
  • Edward I of England#Finances, the expulsion of Jews, and Parliament: the two enlarged paragraphs on his Jewish policies. The prior version can be read here. As well as underplaying the issues, there were some factual / inferential errors I noted on the talk page.
  • Edward I of England#Legacy: here I added a paragraph setting out views of Edward from an Anglo-Jewish studies perspective.

There are also some efn's I added where the material didn't belong in the main text, eg regarding Jews being banned from the new towns in Wales. I'm happy to help with any source checking needed. A lot of it should be easy to access and is frequently available online, eg with Stacey's articles.

Some quick notes on the emphasis: I think the section on Edward's Jewish policies would sit better under its own heading. It is strange to read about these events in between currency reform and how good Edward was at setting up Parliaments.
The Edict of Expulsion seems to run as the destination of about a significant group of the readers of the Edward I page (the figures track that way at least) and is the most popular Edward I related page after the main page - it is a topic that people seem to want to find out about from this page and regard as important.
The Henry III of England page has much more content on his Jewish policies, and its own section, for comparison.
I am starting work on the other additions here. I've identified some other missing information regarding Edward's character that needs to be looked at later. Jim Killock (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure page views a good guide to what is WP:DUE—we would usually look at coverage of Edward I eg. in reliable sources, especially those focused on him personally. One might also consider that the number of Jews expelled was a few thousand, compared to the population under Edward's rule—as many as five million (according to England in the Middle Ages). (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except:
    • The Jewish policies dominated Parliamentary politics to 1290 so were clearly a major concern of the time
    • There is a similar level of concern and activity in the Church (see John Peckham, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield) much directed of it at Edward.
    • The impact of these policies was to make England a nation with a consciously antisemitic identity for several centuries (the unique nation that is unique because it is free of Jews)
    • Edward's impact on anti-Jewish sentiment included giving decisive credibiity to blood libel and setting a precedent for the later Spanish expulsions
    • There is a large historiography which points out that the older mainstream sources on Edward has consistently underestimated the importance of these matters (see review summary at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I).
    • Newer sources are rebalancing the emphasis
    This is outlined at Edward I of England#Legacy. Assuming that Prestwich or biogs in general get the balance right is perilous, the minimum that needs to be done is to check other relevance literatures to see if they agree. Prestwich got a lot of criticism for the things he left out, and concentrating too much on admin and warfare. Morris' more recent work is closer to the mark, but according to the FAC checks said little from the perspective of Wales, and none of the biographies seem have looked at the Irish literature at all.
    From a WP:DUE policy perspective it is quite simple: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Biographies of English Kings are not the only potential reliable sources for English Kings. Anglo-Jewish, Irish, Welsh and Scottish sources are also important and may reflect a different emphasis on what is relevant.
    On the other hand, taking English biographers views as a definitive guide to what is important to emphasise about an English King, could understandably lead to a rather English and NNPOV - which arguably is what we currently have in this article. Jim Killock (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, here's my first suggestions for amendments, regarding the section "Conquest of Wales". I've included notes from the sources to help show why I've selected what I have and to help with any source checking anyone wants to do. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes below are now applied. Jim Killock (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Three
edit
  • current text: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity, enjoying wide support, provoked particularly by attempts to impose English law on Welsh subjects.[1]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[a]
Suggest: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity and the right to traditional Welsh law, enjoying wide support, provoked by attempts to abuse the English legal system to dispossess prominent Welsh landowners, many of whom were Edward's former opponents.[2]"
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • current text: "For Edward, it became a war of conquest rather than simply a punitive expedition, like the former campaign.[3]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[b]
Suggest:"For Edward, it became a war of conquest aimed to "put an end finally to … the malice of the Welsh"."[4]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Three and Four
edit
  • current text: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[5] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[6][7]
Notes from sources: See endnote.[c]
suggest: Move this sentence to after the legal reforms and admin paragraph four. Add to that paragraph: The Welsh aristocracy were nearly wholly dispossessed of their lands.[8] Edward was the greatest beneficiary of this process.[9] and then place afterwards: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[10] The causes included deep resentment at the occupation, poor, colonial-style governance, and very heavy taxation.[11] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[12]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Five: on castles
edit
Notes from sources: See end note.[d]
Suggest: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act as fortresses, royal palaces and as the new centres of civilian and judicial administration.[14]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: missing content
edit
  • current text: Nothing substantial after the revolt, except in the final paragraph regarding making Edward II Prince of Wales; The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region. (This is clarified as heading a system of patronage rather than symbolic act in the Welsh history sources, as below.)
Notes from sources: See end note.[e]
Suggest: After the section on the revolts: The revolt was followed by immediate punitive measures including taking 200 hostages.[15] Measures to stop the Welsh from bearing arms or residing in the new boroughs probably date from this time, and the Welsh administration continued to be nearly wholly imported.[16]
Suggest: At the end of the Conquest section, after the detail about Edward II as PoWales: Edward began a more concilatory policy to rebuild systems of patronage and service, particularly through his son as Prince of Wales, but Wales remained politically volatile, and a deep divide and distrust remained between the English settlers and the Welsh.[17]
Suggest: In the para here about Edward II as PoWales: cut "The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence"; replace with hoping to give his son more financial independence attached to prior sentence.
NB I moved David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince "that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English", but there is no evidence to support this widely reported account.[122] to an endnote.
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This short section on Wales needs replacing. No other part of this section refers to contemporary views, so that should go. Morris is a general medieval not a Welsh historian, although presumably he has family connections; his views are not relevant to Welsh historiography. Whether the conquest was "justified" isn't a discussion point in the Welsh literature; it is rather why and how it was done, and the consequences of it that are discussed.

  • Current text: Modern commentators have conflicting opinions on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of Wales would have allowed England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration.
Notes from sources: Taking queues from the commentary in endnotes especially[a][c][e]
  • Suggested text: Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh national confidence and culture. R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", being "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King", and views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist,[18] creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure.[19] John Davies noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest.[20] They acknowledge Edward's eventual attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest.[21]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

edit

Next steps

edit

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from KJP1

edit

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

  • In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
  • In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
    • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
  • Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
  • Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
    • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
    • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".
  • Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sections on Ireland and EWSI perspectives

edit
Fromer status, Ireland: Mentioned in passing as a source of revenue.
Sentences on Ireland added to "early life": Split control caused problems. Between 1254 and 1272, eleven different Justiciars were appointed to head the Irish government, encouraging further conflict and instability; corruption rose to very high levels.[22]
Section on Ireland, added to Law and administration: Edward’s primary interest in Ireland was as a source of resources, soldiers and funds for his wars, in Gascony, Wales, Scotland and Flanders. Royal interventions aimed at maximising economic extraction.[23] Corruption among Edward's officials was at a concerningly high level, and despite Edward’s efforts after 1272 to reform the Irish administration, record keeping was poor.[24]
Disturbances in Ireland increased during the period. The weakness and lack of direction given to the Lordship’s rule allowed factional fighting to grow, reinforced by the introduction of indentured military service by Irish magnates from around 1290.[25] The funnelling of revenue to Edward’s wars left Irish castles, bridges and roads in a state of disrepair, and alongside the withdrawal of troops to be used against Wales and Scotland and elsewhere, helped induce lawless behaviour. Resistance to 'purveyances', or forced purchase of supplies such as grain, added to lawlessness, and caused speculation and inflation in the price of basic goods.[26] Pardons were granted to lawbreakers for service for the King in England.[27] Revenues and removal of troops for Edward’s wars left the country unable to address its basic needs, while the administration was wholly focused on providing for Edward’s war demands;[28] troops looted and fought with townspeople when on the move.[29] Gaelic Ireland enjoyed a revival, due to the absence of English magnates and the weakness of the Lordship, assimilating some of the settlers.[30] Edward's government was hostile to the use of Gaelic law, which it condemned in 1277 as "displeasing to God and to reason".[31] Conflict was firmly entrenched by the time of the 1297 Irish Parliament, which attempted to create measures to counter disorder and the spread of Gaelic customs and law, while the results of the distress included many abandoned lands and villages.[32]
Legacy section on Scotland, Ireland and EWSI perspective
edit
Former text, Scotland: G. W. S. Barrow, in his biography of Robert the Bruce, accused Edward of ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain a feudal superiority over the kingdom followed by his determination to reduce it to nothing more than an English possession.[33]
Applied replacement text: G. W. S. Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.[34] In his view, Edward's insistence on war and misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries".[35]
Former text, Ireland: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: (after Wales and Scotland, same paragraph) Irish historian James Lydon regarded the thirteenth century and Edward's reign as a turning point, as the Lordship extracted resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolongued conflict.[36]
Prior, EWSI perspective: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: A number of historians, including Simon Schama, Norman Davies, and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.[37] They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and regarding the other nations of Britain and Ireland.[38] Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.[39] While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,[40] they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict.[41]
Legacy section regarding Edward's assessment
edit
Prior revision: See 09:04, 29 May 2024
Current version: See 07:12, 8 June 2024
Diff: See Legacy section diff
Additional changes to Legacy section regarding modern assessments: The section on modern assessments of Edward lacked depth and contained errors regarding the commentators views. This has been rewritten to reflect the positions of the historians mentioned, which do not uniformly regard Edward as "great" as previously drafted. Rather, all see him as highly significant, but differ in their assessment of his motivations, strategic sense and the nature of his impact as to whether generally or highly positive, or containing negative elements.
Character section on EWSI perspective
edit
Previous: Nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: Edward is often noted as exhibiting vindictiveness towards his defeated enemies, and triumphalism in his actions.[42] Examples include the seizure of fragments of the Holy Cross from Wales after its defeat in 1283, and subsequently the Stone of Scoon and royal regalia from Scotland after defeats in 1296.[43] Some historians question Edward's good faith and trustworthiness in relation to his dealing with Wales and Scotland, believing him to have been capable of going back on his word or behaving duplicitously.[44]
Character section on religion
edit
Previous: missing role of propaganda, crusader angle, personal certitude
Applied additional text: Edward's use of the church also extended to war mobilisation including disseminating official justifications for war, usually through the issue of writs to England's archbishops, who distributed his requests for services and prayers.[45] Edward's architectural programme also had an element of propaganda, sometimes combining this with religious messages of piety.[46]
Note: More to follow
Lead inclusion of additional perspectives
edit
Previous: Did not include impacts on Ireland, negative evaluations of relations with Wales and Scotland, or antisemitic policies in general.
Applied additional text, lead para 2: In Ireland, he had extracted soldiers, supplies and money, leaving decay, lawlessness and a revival of the fortunes of his enemies in Gaelic territories.
Previous text re criticisms: At the same time, he is also often condemned for his wars against Scotland and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290.
Applied additional text re criticisms, end of lead: At the same time, he is also often condemned for vindictiveness, opportunism and untrustworthiness in his dealings with Wales and Scotland, coupled with a colonialist approach to their governance and to Ireland, and for antisemitic policies leading to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290.

Next or final steps

edit
  • Check more recent Scottish sources, also EWSI perspectives, re Scotland especially administration and trust
  • Moved some comments re character Rework legacy and character sections to have some of the criticisms of Edward in the character section instead?

Feedback requested

edit

I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @KJP1 or @Serial Number 54129 or anyone else has feedback I would be very grateful. Pings to @Unlimitedlead, @Dudley Miles, @Ealdgyth, @Usernamesarebunk, @Lampman, @Hchc2009, @GoldRingChip, @Gog the Mild, @Surtsicna, @Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

edit
Questions arising
edit
  • Legacy and end of reign sections don't fully cover the difficult situation left to his son (debt, fractious Parliament and unwinnable war; chaos in Ireland and discontent in Wales)
  • Edward's relations with the Papacy and church could be better developed
  • Edward's reign in Gascony has also come in for signficant criticism regarding subsequent chaos in its aftermath, notes @LlywelynII on the talk page.
  • done Edward as French crown's vassal in Gascony had the same challenges as his English, Welsh and Scottish vassals, is a point often raised
  • Request on talk page for better explanation of his reinternment
  • Noted above for action Scottish sources used are rather old (GWS Barrow), while still well regarded, newer sources should be checkd

  • (dealt with on page as minor item using Veach 2014) Some of the positive assessments in the "Legacy" section belong to a group of authors (Spencer and Burt) whose work focuses narrowly on Edward from an English law and administration perspective, their conclusions are notably in tension with the authors from the "four nations / British Isles" perspective. This could do with sourcing and commentary.
  • (dealt with on page as minor item) Request on talk page for better acknowledgement of the massacre at Berwick
  • (dealt with / in progress) Edward's innovations in propaganda have been noted in relation to the use the church and also in architecture, could do with a line or two.
  • (dealt with / in progress) There is a strand of literature looking at the history of the "British Isles" in this period (as with others, cf the revaluation of the English Civil Wars as the "Wars of the Three Kingdoms". With Edward I this would draw the threads together of the commonalities between the England to Ireland, Scotland and Wales relationships. Needs a check starting with Barrow 1983, Davies 1998 and Frame 1990.
  • (dealt with / in progress) The "character as King" section will need rewriting to take account of the more negative perspectives, regarding abuse of law, going back on his word, acts of petty vengeance, contempt for the Welsh, for example
Endnotes
edit
  1. ^ a b R Davies explains this rather differently: Edward "made a mockery" of the law to dispossess properties from Welsh landowners and engaged in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King" (other examples taking place in Scotland for example) p346-7. Morris makes similar points more gently pages 174-6. J Davies makes brief points regarding legal conflict over territories on p153-4 Prestwich includes legal attacks on Welsh estates as an important factor in the cause of the war, but places blame for the legal conflicts more at the hands of Edward's underlings. p185-88
  2. ^ Justifying his actions, Edward refers to the need to "put and end finally to … the malice of the Welsh" and is several times recorded as wanting to end the "malice of the Welsh". This ought to be quoted as the official reasoning in Edward's own words. Davies in general emphasises Edward's dislike of the Welsh. See Davies p346-7. Morris emphasises the impact of what Edward saw as treachery at p178, and mentions that Edward and English rulers were "conditioned" to see the Welsh as an inferior race (p175). Prestwich makes no mention of Edward's personal attitudes, except to say it was a war of conquest, p188-9.
  3. ^ a b Davies explains that Edward rapidly changed the nature of governance and political power in Wales. There was a "massive programme of disinheritance" of the former Welsh aristocracy, (p361) and the grestest beneficiary from this was Edward p362-3. The administration was for a generation or so that of a civilian end of a military occupation, p365 and had a ""distinctively colonial flavour". p366. Taxation and revenues were collected with "ruthless … efficiency". p367. English law was imposed in most matters. p367-8. The conquest left a "deep legacy of despair and bitterness" p379. Day to day grievances accumulated and did not have an outlet, p379-80, Edward had not learnt the need to work with the existing local structures and communities and failed to restrain the "greed and zeal" of his officials causing further rebellions. The second which, heavy taxation placed a big role in causing p382. It drew on "deep resentment of alien rule" and was a "classic anti-colonial revolt" p383. John Davies notes the active colonisation of the boroughs and some rural areas, at a smaller scale than the Normans but nonetheless causing resentment; Caernarvon was targeted in the rebellion p168-9 Morris mentions dispossession of arisocrats p 196. Prestwich p216-22 broadly agrees with the points above regarding administration but does not touch on the mood of the Welsh, characterises it as "hardly surprising" that the Welsh were badly treated and "hardly surprising" that they revolted, rather than framing Wales' post Conquest governance as a colonial enterprise. He says at p232 clearly Edward got something wrong because the revolt took place. Uniting his enemies in the prior period Llywelyn and Dafydd ws particularly "inept". He remarks that Edward can be criticised for the conquest of course but in the end Edward was successful.
  4. ^ R Davies says they were also civilian, "quasi-imperial" and "the headquarters of a new administrative, financial and judicial dispensation" p360
  5. ^ a b R Davies notes that the revolt sparked punitive action from Edward, whose pride was hurt by it. left Wales in a state of apartheid-like tension, with high levels of mutual suspicion He took 200 hostages (p384) further castle building was undertaken (p385) orders to keep stop the Welsh being armed in boroughs or living within them rpobably issued at this time (p385); confirmed settler fears (p386); however systems of patronage and service were set up to fill the political and social vacuum left after the initial conquest. John Davies makes similar observations, notes that some Welsh were ready to co-operate, but the settlers had an "anti-Welsh fanaticism"; notes that there were prohibitions on Welsh having office and the administration was nearly wholly imported officials p173-5 Prestwich does not comment on the situation after 1295. Mostly he talks about the war administration (already covered in the WP article) Morris has nothing substantial in this period AFAICT.
Sources for convenience
edit
  • Bachrach, DS (2004). "The Ecclesia Anglicana goes to War: Prayers, Propaganda, and Conquest during the Reign of Edward I of England, 1272–1307". Albion. 36 (3): 393–406. doi:10.2307/4054365.
  • Barrow, G. W. S. (1983) [1956]. Feudal Britain (Paperback ed.). Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0713156256.
  • Brown, Michael (2004). The Wars of Scotland 1214-1371. New Edinburgh History of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-1238-6. OL 9890348M.
  • Prestwich, Michael (1997) [1988]. Edward I. English Monarchs (Revised Second ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3000-7209-9. OL 704063M.
  • Davies, John (2007) [1990]. A History of Wales (Revised ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140284751. OL 7352278M.
  • Davies, Norman (1999). The Isles: A History. Oxford: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0333692837. OL 39554M.
  • Davies, R. R. (2000) [1987]. The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-1982-0878-2.
  • Davies, R. R. (1990). Dominion and conquest: the experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales 1100-1300. Wiles Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38069-3.
  • Davies, R. R. (1998). The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093-1343. Ford Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University press. ISBN 978-0198208495..
  • Frame, Robin (1990). The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206040.001.0001. ISBN 9780198206040.
  • Frame, Robin (1998). Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781852851491. OL 697345M.
  • Lydon, James (2008a). "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315". In Cosgrove, Art (ed.). A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 179–204. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539703.003.0008. ISBN 9780199539703. OL 9793047M.
  • Lydon, James (2008b). "A Land of War". In Cosgrove, Art (ed.). A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 240–274. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539703.003.0010. ISBN 9780199539703. OL 9793047M.
  • Morris, Marc (2009). A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain. London: Windmill Books. ISBN 978-0-0994-8175-1.
  • Schama, Simon (2000). "Aliens and natives". A history of Britain. London: BBC Worldwide. pp. 155–221. ISBN 0563384972.
  • Stocker, David (1986). "The Shrine of Little St Hugh". Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral. British Archaeological Association. pp. 109–117. ISBN 9780907307143.
  • Veach, Colin (2014). "Cambridge Views of Edward: Caroline Burt, Edward I and the Governance of England, 1272-1307 .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012; Andrew M. Spencer, Nobility and Kingship in Medieval England: The Earls and Edward I, 1272– 1307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013". Óenach Reviews. 6 (2): 11–18.

Not yet consulted

  • Allen Brown, R.; Colvin, H. M.; Taylor, A. J. (1963). The Middle Ages. The History of the King's Works. Vol. I. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

not consulted in this round

Citations

  1. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69
  2. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Davies 2007, pp. 153–4, Prestwich 1997, pp. 185–88
  3. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 188.
  4. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Prestwich 1997, pp. 188–9
  5. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  6. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225.
  7. ^ Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  8. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 361
  9. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 362–3
  10. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  11. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 367, 382–3, Prestwich 1997, pp. 216–22, 232, Davies 2007, pp. 168–9 Morris 2009, p. 196
  12. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225, Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  13. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86.
  14. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86; Davies 2000, p. 360.
  15. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  16. ^ Davies 2000, p. 385, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  17. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 384, 382–3, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  18. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, 366, 383 Quotes at p. 347
  19. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  20. ^ Davies 2007, pp. 173–5, quote p. 174.
  21. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384-5, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  22. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 180–81, 193–4.
  23. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 181.
  24. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 193–4.
  25. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86.
  26. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 196–7, 202–3.
  27. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 202–3.
  28. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 201.
  29. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 203.
  30. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 271, 273.
  31. ^ Davies 1990, p. 115.
  32. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3, Lydon 2008a, p. 203
  33. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  34. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  35. ^ Barrow 1983, p. 408.
  36. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86, 203, Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3
  37. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9, Davies 1990, pp. 22–30
  38. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9
  39. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 118–9, Frame 1998, p. 172
  40. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3, Schama 2000, pp. 185–6, Davies 1999, pp. 314–5
  41. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 62–3, Barrow 1983, p. 408, Frame 1998, p. 172
  42. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3
  43. ^ Davies 1990, p. 125-6
  44. ^ Barrow 1983, pp. 394–5, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7
  45. ^ Bachrach 2004, p. 396.
  46. ^ Stocker 1986, p. 115.
Notified: Scartol, WillowW, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women scientists, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-08-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous citation concerns, including an orange banner at the top of the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section and an uncited "List of doctoral students" section. There's also a lot of great prose describing math concepts, but much of this does not describe how Noether contributed to these concepts and I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand how Noether contributed to the ideas. I think this would need a math specialist to help improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for the entire doctoral students section. Also, far be it from me to ignite another "anti-intellectualism" GAR/FAR firestorm, but the line "I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand" rubs me the wrong way. Yes, to understand Noether's accomplishments it is necessary to understand the mathematics and physics concepts she worked with. That said, I agree that the contributions section could be better sourced; we used to allow unsourced background material that we would expect any student of the subject to have some familiarity with, but those days are gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon my comment about what the reader needs to understand: after reading the article when making the nomination, I found that some sections did a great job explaining the math, but struggled to connect it to Noether. For example, in the "Background on abstract algebra" section, Noether is not mentioned until paragraph 4. I would expect Noether's contributions to be more prominent and mentioned first, then the mathematical principles explained by connecting it to Noether's contributions. I think the "First epoch (1908–1919): Physics", all the second epoch, and all the third epoch sections do this well; I think the other sections need to feature Noether more prominently, which might involve removing some information, and will probably involve moving around some information. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We get an issue with accessibility or focus whichever way you slice it: either there's maths explanations with nothing to do with Noether, or the descriptions are only accessible to those familiar with elementary algebra. If you don't understand what a group is, it's impossible to understand Noether's contributions to maths. I don't think you can reverse the order of it.
The subject matter is necessarily extremely technical. What might not be obvious to layreaders is that (e.g.) the group representations paragraph is child's play compared to the statement of Noether's problem. This is the dumbing down as far as possible without distorting the facts. I can wax lyrical about group representations but Galois theory makes my head hurt. By focusing on big picture ("it's all about symmetries", "like prime numbers") and toy examples (the discriminant, polynomial splitting fields), but also giving the full statements of what Noether studied, I think the article does quite well. I feel it's best left as is unless someone is jumping to make it a big project of theirs.
My comments at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020 were to indicate that I do not think there are major citation issues—it's more a style issue, as convention has changed since 2008. I do feel this article would benefit from a mathematician giving it a full copyedit, with an algebra textbook to hand for some inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv said more or less what I was going to. The ordering in the "Background on abstract algebra" passage makes sense because, well, it's background. It has to cover concepts that were introduced a half-century before Noether was even born. That's just how math works: it's a cumulative subject, and we can't always take a thin slice out of it and hope for a meaningful result.
Much of the uncited material can probably be found in any textbook on the area (e.g., the definition of a ring or a group representation is standard stuff). I did what I could with the books that I had near my desk, but I am too tired to do more and need a very very long break. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the "List of doctoral students" section is necessary in the first place. "All" (i.e. those with wikilinks) the notable students are in the infobox and a table list of their dissertations and defenses seem somewhat superfluous. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the section. Feel free to revert or add it back if you disagree. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also realised there were two separate "Recognition" sections, which I merged together. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this removal. Everything in the infobox should be a summary of main-article text. The infobox should not supplant the article. See MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you include the list of doctoral students only in the infobox, then readers looking for a non-superficial summary will not find that information. Or, to put it another way, if it is so important to the article that it needs to be summarized in the infobox, so that even low-attention-span readers skimming the infobox find it, then it is also so important to the article that it should be covered properly in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the infobox shouldn't supplant the article. My reasoning was that the infobox could have the names of all her notable doctoral students while the article went into more detail (which it does, in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section; I recognise it's in need of some more sentences about her doctoral students specifically). I still don't believe a list of their dissertations and defense dates is of benefit to the average reader, but I'll leave it. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the specific table format. A more prose-like format such as a bulleted list might be better. The titles of the dissertations are less important than their overall topics and what happened afterward to each student. And the placement of the list of students in the article would make more sense in the section you mention than as an appendix at the end. But if one is looking for a complete list of her students (or, what the infobox lists, her bluelinked students) one won't find anything resembling that in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. After the citation issues are resolved, perhaps the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section can be expanded to include more information about her doctoral students, but I don't think it should make or break the article's Featured status. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David Eppstein that the doctoral students should be mentioned in the body. An exhaustive list makes sense to me, with dissertation topic (e.g. p-adic numbers) and anything the student was later known for. It would also make sense to incorporate them into the chronological account of her life, but the issue might be that she had so many notable students that it could overwhelm the rest of the section's focus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with ensuring they are mentioned in the body. My reasoning was that dissertation titles and defense dates are not that important. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dates are worth keeping. The titles, if we have topics instead, can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've added an initial mention of the two Erlangen students in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section. They don't seem too notable though and could probably be moved up to the "Teaching period" one instead. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be of much help with the citation issues. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline reference issue in Note a has been fixed. Two cn tags remain, and the section on her second epoch might need some citations too. The rest of the article seems good. Beyond that, I had the idea of making her doctoral students part of the prose rather than an explicit table at the bottom of the article, but that shouldn't make or break FA-status. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sgubaldo. Haven't given up on the last few cns. Just been busy. I'll either fix them soon or throw in the towel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' as mentioned on the talk page, but i'm a little skeptical of using it as a source since it's mostly aimed at teenagers and the author takes some literary creativity and makes up conversations between historical figures. No luck on the other cn tag yet. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Her family paid" line. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been paying attention to the bigger picture, but I resolved what I think was the last remaining cleanup tag a couple days ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've prosified the doctoral students and added some references in certain places. If a reviewer could go through and check again what else they feel needs a citation, that would help. Other than that, I think this should be done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Lurker (last edit was 2008), Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Islands, 2023-11-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the article has not been updated with much post-2008 information. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC It needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FA standard. The economy section alone does not really explain much about the island's economy and is mostly focused on transport. That is ok given its an island but then there is little explanation of the transport infrastructure eg ferry terminal and no detail about the ships Iona, Klydon and Clytus which must have had a major impact for the economy and socially for the island over the last century. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Not easy to know what else can be said about the economy - https://www.orkney.com/explore/shapinsay for example has little or no new detail. Omand (2003) has a few more historical snippets I think but I don't see anything new on Google books. I can have a look for some info about the ferry terminal etc. There's an interesting article here about electric ferries for example. However, I wouldn't expect a great deal of noteworthy information to have been accumulated since 2008. I have not been there since before that time but the last time I looked across the sound from Kirkwall it still seemed to be essentially the farming community of 300 folk it was then. Not sure about the 'uncited passages'. It's a while since I spent any time on the article but (unless you think every sentence needs one so that a single para might have several duplicate refs) I don't see any big problems. Any specifics gratefully received. As a jocular aside I find it amusing that the island has been inhabited for 4,000 years or more but an FA about it from 15 years ago is described as "very old". We all have our different perspectives I suppose. Ben MacDui 12:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui happy to see you on board! If you can add those bits you mention above, I'll have another look (as I was the author of the original concerns). Let me know when you think it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you Sandy. I hope to take a look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 18:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit about the Klydon and Clytus which had rather undistinguished origins. There does not appear to be a ferry terminal as such as the image suggests. I'll have another stab as soon as I can manage. Ben MacDui 16:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good additions. I added a bit on agriculture too as an update. I think the economy and now transport sections are much improved already. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia et al. I have made some references more detailed, tweaked the lead and added a short section that covers some of the downsides of the Balfour improvements. (I might add a short note to this as well.) I can't seen any egregious examples of missing citations. Please let me know what you think. Ben MacDui 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: While waiting for Sandy to respond, I'll note some things below:

  • The demography section needs an update with 2021 data.
    • The census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. To the best of my knowledge there is no data yet for the islands – I beleive this is likely to appear in 2024. (The updates for all islands is a substantial task.)
  • The history section has nothing post-1980. Are there any notable events from the past 40+ years?
    • I met someone once who was from Shapinsay and had been appointed to a short-life government advisory board. Not sure this is super notable. I wonder when history ends and the modern economy begins. To me at least 1990 isn’t yet ‘history’. There is a bit of breaking news here I can add.
  • I see references in the lede, which is sometimes a sign that information has been added to the lede that is not in the article body. Is this information in the article body? If so, these references are not needed.
    • MOS:CITELEAD seems to be a bit wishy-washy about this sort of thing. I'll take a look.
  • Many references are not of the highest quality, with many primary sources and tourism sites used. Can these sources be replaced?
    • It is a recurring feature of encyclopedic work in relation to Scottish islands (and, I imagine, rural areas elsewhere in the world) that these resources are often called into question – but that none other are available. Undiscovered Scotland for example is often grumbled about – yet it is an excellent source of information and I have never found it to be inaccurate.
  • Many sources have incomplete information, such as author, name of the website that is publishing this information, and archival information. Can each of the sources be looked at and information added?
    • Perhaps we are more ADHD now than we were. I will have a look.
  • Has a search been done of academic sources that could be added to the article, particularly ones published after this article was promoted?
    • How often do get published about modern Shapinsay? I am no longer as assiduous as I once was in seeking academic-style books or articles out but my guess is that Omand (2003) was the last one. In short I am not aware of better sources.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Ben MacDui 10:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: I have now:
      • Added the minor bit of breaking news referred to above.
      • Removed the citations from the lead.
      • Done a first pass at tidying them up. There is a dead link but no sign of a wayback archive being available. Ref #80 has a funny little ‘note’ that could arguably be removed or moved to the notes section.
    • I also note that:
      • There are a certain number of newer academic publications about local prehistory, history and some detailed work on local seabirds and seaweed but nothing at all that I can see about the modern political economy or anything in the former categories that (at first sight) suggests they have importance for this article.
      • It is a feature of Shapinsay that although many the larger Orcadian isles – and some of the smaller ones such as Papa Westray - have archaeological sites of world importance Shapinsay has a relative paucity of them. I can’t see anything new on Canmore or JSTOR that needs to be added. Ben MacDui 11:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent news is typically harder to find academic sources for. Therefore, it might be better to look at local sources for information to add to the History section. I would suggest at least a sentence on the island's votes on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orkney voted 63.2% 'Remain' and 67.2% 'No' but this data is not broken down by individual island. I am pretty sure this doesn't happen even for local authority elections, Shapinsay being part of the North Isles ward. See also Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ben MacDui 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some tidying up and came across Irvine's Blaeu's Maps of the Northern Isles. I'd rather forgotten about it - I purchased it a few years after the Shapinsay FAC and used it on a few other articles. There are some snippets about the 17th century I can add. Not much perhaps but "happy is the land that has no history". Ben MacDui 12:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any further issues needing attention. Please indicate any I may have missed. Ben MacDui 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved. I would now rate it as Keep as FA. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more that can be added about the flora - the two reserves? Is the island all grassland and meadows? Are there any trees? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney has very few stands of trees other than at Happy Valley on the Mianland and Shapinsay is pretty much all grass. I will however have a hunt for some more info soonest. Ben MacDui 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber There is a decent picture here. If you scroll down you can see a woman with a red jacket walking through the landscape described as “a patchwork of lush grazing interspersed with fields of barley”. The summer wildflowers are a sight but there is nothing particularly special about Shapinsay from that point of view, at least afaik. The list of flower species is borrowed from the main Orkney article. The nature reserves seem to be shy about the details of the flora. I added some bumblebee info too. Ben MacDui 10:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: are you still working on this article? The last edit was in January. I think there's still some information that can be added in the "History" and the Demography section can be updated with the latest census figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'd be happy to continue working on this but (1) per the above the new census data has not yet appeared and (2) if you can make a suggestion or two about what aspects of the history are worth adding I can look into that. Ben MacDui 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben MacDui: I am not too familiar with this topic, so I am not sure what to specifically suggest. However, there must be some post-1980 events that have happened at this location. Is there anything significant in terms of natural disasters, political events, the completion or discontinue of major infrastructure projects, and political events might be information that you could add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: There are numerous references to 21st century events under the economy, transport, education and culture headings. I'll have another look but bear in mind that this is an island with a population of 300 (roughly equivalent to Camden East), many of whom are farmers. I doubt there are too many political events of note to record. Ben MacDui 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a trawl through the BBC website again. We have

There was also a story about a jailed rapist who lived on the island – although the crimes were committed elsewhere and I am not keen on an inclusion. Ben MacDui 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Ben MacDui: These stories feel like routine articles and I'm not sure if any of them are notable. Instead, I think some of the events listed in other sections that you mention above should be moved into the history section. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I moved the bit about the seocndary school closing in 95 and the improved commuting generally. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the history of the ferrys under "history" and then come back to the same topic again later under "transport". Ben MacDui 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria Not sure what to say - there have been about 60 edits to the article since it was nominated. I have run out of ideas to add anything further and I am not aware of anything that's been requested that has not been addressed one way or another. Ben MacDui 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Reviewing this to hopefully get this out of FAR:

  • The demographics in the lede, infobox and Demographics section are from 2011. Can these be updated with the latest census data?
    • Per the above, the census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. There is no data yet for the islands – it looks like it may now be 2025 before this is published.
  • The "Economy" section uses some citations and information from 2007, when the article first went to FAC. These should be updated with more recent sources to show that the economy remains as described in the text, or updated to reflect more recent trends.
    • It is a recurring theme of the review that somehow a small farming community of 300 ought to produce reliable data on a regular basis about such things. It's not really clear to me where this would be obtained. I will take another look at the development trust website.
  • "Education and culture" also needs to be updated with the latest figures.
    • I note that the primary school now has 23 pupils rather than 26. I'll make the change asap.
  • I did a copyedit of the article. Feel free to revert anything, but please note it below.
    • I may add back one or two of the bits you removed - e.g. about the unusual field pattern which afaik is unique in Orkney.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • It does and thanks for this. Replies by Ben MacDui 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the above now attended to. Ben MacDui 17:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Underbar dk, Lingzhi.Random, talk page notice 2023-01-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been no improvement since issues were raised in March 2022 (Talk:Battle_of_Red_Cliffs#FA_sweeps). Issues include: cn issues, questionable sources, and unsourced images. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9 you should also notify the four WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. While you are doing that, would you please also notify Lingzhi.Renascence on their talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications should have also included @Applodion and Gog the Mild:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: User_talk:Lingzhi.Renascence#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is missing de Crespigny 2010, Imperial Warlord (Brill), his biography of Cao Cao. I read it in the springtime this year; I'll see what I can do with it. I'll have a look at this article sometime this week, but probably not right after work today. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to actively throw my hat into the ring to help save this FA. I'll start with grabbing this Cao Cao biography. Remsense 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone else wants to peruse the source I mentioned above, a recent English-language treatment by an expert in the field, direct TWL link. I'm currently searching for more sources. The only real bad ones live at the article have to do with pop culture stuff, and the last time I was forced to cite material like that (at Sima Yi) it made me want to cry, like I had called my dentist to make an appointment and ended up filing taxes over the phone instead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourcing issues (like maps about the engagement) are not going to be resolveable, since there's no uniform reconstructed narrative. A455bcd9, I've never been to FAR before. Do we discuss sourcing issues here or on the article talk page? Folly Mox (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever works best, Folly Mox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox longer discussions can be put on the talk page of this FAR page, or on article talk. Just provide a link back to here, and if improvements are occurring and more time is needed, please keep this page informed weekly; otherwise, we proceed to declarations (Move to FARC, Close w/o FARC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ok I was not aware of the time limit. I guess I'd better get going on this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox; no time limit as long as things are progressing in the right direction-- just keep this page informed weekly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started in on this yesterday. I've resolved a few of the "easy issues" brought up: improved the sourcing for two claims and removed a third claim that was not adequately supported; I think all but one of the {{cn}} tags has been resolved, but I've also been adding them as I go. Most of these were of the genre "actually already supported by sources cited in the article, which the tagger didn't check."
The maps are probably sourceable, and may even be accurate for the leading historical reconstruction. I have a question for the reviewers: if I find a suitably RS map that is similar to the unsourced ones in the article, is it ok to cite the article maps as "after Source S"? or just cite the map to an appropriate source even though the graphical style or level of detail varies?
Apart from the obvious issues raised at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs § FA sweeps, I see more serious problems that are not evident to people without a background in the subject matter. One is that the historical narrative that has grown up around the battle is blandly accepted without balance by opposing critical viewpoints. It even gets a shout out in the infobox, where "Cao Cao fails to conquer lands south of the Yangtze River". This is not wrong, but we don't actually have evidence this was his intent. Another major issue is the impoverished postface. The § Cultural impact section is a measly two paragraphs, which is inadequately representative of the state of the field.
Overreliance on certain sources is present, and I'm probably not going to be able to do better than de Crespigny for the English language ones. He's been the preeminent English language scholar on early mediaeval Chinese history for decades. At the time of promotion fifteen years ago, the article leaned heavily on freely available internet sources, some of which have since been paywalled and I'm not readily able to verify. The source I mentioned in my initial comment on this page was published post-promotion. I've begun incorporating information from it.
The § Location section closely follows the major English language treatment of the question, the author of which holds a view distinctly outside the mainstream, which he acknowledges. We'll have to make sure that is balanced out at some point.
I haven't started looking at Chinese language sources yet (apart from the early ones I have at home). I haven't scraped zh:赤壁之戰 for its sources, or even read it or the subject's baidu to see what sorts of things we're not mentioning that I haven't thought of.
Surface level issues include citation style irregularities and slightly incomplete full citations. User:Remsense has kindly standardised the shortened footnote templates already, which I threw out of balance in my first several edits. There is also copyediting to do, and almost certainly other things listed at WP:FACR that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm happy to take point on this effort, but I do work full time, so except for the band between about 1130–1400 UTC, I won't be able to do much on weekdays. Thanks everyone for your patience. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, if you are willing/able to see this all the way through, time is always allowed. But you should probably know going in that you and Remsense may be doing the work alone, as no one else has shown up. I'd be fine with using a map to source a map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that characterisation of the workload was pretty anticipated. I'm down. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a bibliography of a couple zhwiki sources that appear additive for our purposes from first skim:

And a couple I happened to find while searching:
Remsense 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. `Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!
I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 03 December

(I guess this is transcluded somewhere, so lvl 4 subheading here).

Improvements to the article thus far have been slow. We've identified and added some additional sources, and cleared out all the {{cn}} tags but for the two maps (which Remsense may have to recreate? but if new maps based on sourced information look substantially similar to the existing maps, did we need the new maps? still characteristically confused on this point) – and a {{cn}} tag that is essentially there because something was stated in prose rather than framed as part of article structure.

I am working on (read: sometimes thinking about) replacing all the sources I'm not able to verify personally, chiefly two offline Chinese news sources, but also two de Crespigny sources. Overreliance on de Crespigny will seem less serious once the "cultural legacy and impact" section is filled in a bit more. I knew de Crespigny was unavoidable for historical treatments of this time period, but I didn't previously understand how he's basically the Amazon of English language Three Kingdoms period history. The monographs are all him, and even the Cambridge History chapters are him too. Will have to look in different disciplines for other authors to include.

Most of my work thus far has not resulted in edits: finding and reading (or rereading) sources. Problems remain with framing, coverage. Remsense has been making a lot of positive technical and copyedits, which of course I'll let them report about.

At this point it's no longer my intent to replace all the statements sourced to Chen and Pei 429 (三國志注) with modern sources, but instead to quarantine them in their own section, alike but unalike to the "Fictionalised account" section about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms variant narrative. Reason being that the earliest sources are already disparate in their accounts, and providing these to the reader should assist encyclopaedic understanding. Folly Mox (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My addendum: my work has been decidedly less meaty than Molly's, a large chunk of it being presentation-oriented, copy edits and template work and citation formatting and the like. I'm assembling all the sourcing I think I may need to either secure or redesign the maps into one place. Overall, I think we are doing well.
On the map sourcing question: If the information presented in a map indeed lines up with the written description in a source, I fully believe that this qualifies as verifiability. To me, it is not qualitatively different from adding a source to text, even if that text may not have been originally written according to said source. Remsense 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 14 December Hey—I've done a bit more work behind the scenes and working on the graphics, but haven't directly edited the article in the past week. Folly is busy, and my attention has been elsewhere for the most part, in part on the simultaneous FAR over at Byzantine Empire. But now my attention is turning back here, and I'll be sharing some updates and doing some of the cleanup I can still see in the article in the next couple days. Cheers. Remsense 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:
  • Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
  • The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.
Remsense 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).
I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.
The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.
Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.
The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.
The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.
Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC No edits in three weeks and uncited passages remain. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720, I would happily participate in this process. However, could you confirm my understanding of the article?
      • Each map is tagged as unsourced.
      • There is one unsourced paragraph as such, admittedly an important one.

      From what I understand, one map doesn't have any actual citation issues, and the other could be easily modified to remove a singular citation issue. The paragraph, I could try my best to solidify or replace. — Remsense 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. — Remsense 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll strike my "Move to FARC" above. As long as work is continuing, I think the FAR co-ords will opt to keep this open.. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720, understanding every paragraph should end in a citation—does the "Wuchang-to-Chibi City" claim require an explicit citation in your mind, or is it WP:CALC? — Remsense 03:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.
I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe all of the original complaints have been addressed. The lead could probably use something of a rewrite, it hardly covers the whole article. If only Folly were around right now! @Remsense, where do you think the article stands? Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I apologize for flaking again on this for a while—I really don't want to have people feeling like they have to track me down for follow-ups; I very much appreciate your diligence and support in getting this to the finish line, Aza. Remsense 08:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remsense, are you planning to take on a lead rewrite? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a CE sweep, does anyone thing any additional information is require to adequately summarize the article? Remsense 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria, Aza24, and Remsense: sorry everyone! I had some problems last season and 1000‰ dropped the ball on this whole project. I don't remember where I was in my research and lost my downloads to hardware failure and TWL access to inactivity. I haven't looked in at where this article stands and thank everyone for any contributions, but if it needs to be delisted I understand. Folly Mox (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

edit

Comments after a review:

  • "Battle of Red Cliffs and Cao Cao's retreat.[26][additional citation(s) needed] " This tag needs to be resolved in the image caption
  • The "Fictionalised account" sections confuses me. It seems to only talk about the historical differences between fictionalised and historical accounts, but does not describe what these fictionalised accounts are (plays, operas, folk songs) and when/how they were developed. Of particular confusion is what "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" is: this needs to be described so that I don't need to click on the wikilink to discover what this is.
  • "Since then, cultural festivals held by the city have helped to dramatically increase tourism to the area." How are these cultural festivals connected to the battle?
  • The "Cultural impact" section could probably be organised better to remove the small paragraphs. I would also consider merging this with "Fictionalised account" as these seem to be related.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that Biz is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biz and Remsense: What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Furius @DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.
    If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.
    1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.
    • Check they actually say what was written
    • Check for patch-writing
    • Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
    • Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation
    2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.
    • There should be synergies between these articles
    • When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.
    3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).
    • If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
    • In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
    • Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.
    The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.
    Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts by major section
  • Lead: 571
  • Nomenclature: 307
  • History: 10,090
  • Government and bureaucracy: 924
  • Science and medicine: 528
  • Culture: 3536
  • Economy: 418
  • Legacy: 416
Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
  • Early Byzantine history: 1026
  • Justinian dynasty: 1081
  • Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
  • Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
  • Crisis and fragmentation: 491
  • Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
  • Decline and disintegration: 1282
  • Fall: 309
  • Political aftermath: 725
Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also fully support this approach. Remsense 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed? Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC. I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
    • I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
      • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
        • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
      • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
      • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
        • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
        • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
    • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
    Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, Biz, and Remsense: How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biz please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825Talk 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after – Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-28

I am the nominator of the 2007 Minneapolis FAC and have been working to bring it to current FA standards since at least 2020 through several talk page archives, with SandyGeorgia looking in. I believe it is at today's FA standard, and ready for review at FAR. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never did finish my pre-FAR review on article talk; will try to get back to that by leaving comments here this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been much busier than expected this week. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to give the new Turnpike album a second listen anyways, so might as well start going through this tonight. Saving the lead for last ...

  • I know that newer style of interactive map has its benefits, but is there any way to also show the reader at a glance where Minneapolis is located in the country, rather than making them get into the interactive map, fiddle with the zoom system which is kinda balky on mobile, and then try to figure out that information?
Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?
  • "The US Army Corps of Engineers built a concrete dike that held in 1876" - needs rephrased somehow. Current phrasing implies that there was some sort of particulalry important holding that happened in 1876
Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.
  • So do the sources indicate why exactly the milling and logging declined? From what I can tell the milling seems to have taken over about the time the logging went down, but it's not obvious from a quick skim of sources if the milling directly supplanted the lumber, or if the local forests had been extirpated, or something else altogether
Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?
  • "With the Fuji-Ya restaurant leading the way on the west bank," - is this a particularly important detail to note? I had noticed when I was doing my informal review on the talk page several months again that the article had a tendency to make unnecessary name drops
Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.
  • Susan, I'd like to hear your and Sandy's thoughts on this, but I have some tone concerns here. Stuff like "formidable Institute of Technology", "in the end, to the nation and the globe", and others.
My shorthand, and no problem to omit.
  • The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about "fabulous" which I removed).
  • Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.
  • " and supplied about half the electrical needs of the US military during World War II" - the sources actually says "during World War II the firm produced nearly half of all the electric plants used by the American military during the conflict". There is an important distinction between "electrical needs" which implies all electricity usage, and then producing half of all generators, which doesn't really equate to half of electricity usage
Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

Stopping here for now. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those examples of tone are necessary, and they should be omitted unless the source specifically supports them, in which case they should be quoted and attributed. Thanks for reviewing, HF; it's been several months since I last took a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hog Farm. I was looking forward to your comments and they didn't disappoint. Everything done as indicated inline above, with one exception. Looking for an alternate way to say "nation and the globe." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm embarrassed to say the phrase is a too-close paraphrase of William Lass. Much better to omit it. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I found a few more adjectives (extraordinary, extraordinary, diverse). Are you all recommending they be omitted?

  • "The truck drivers union executed strikes with extraordinary "military precision"". I read Walker's book and it was astonishing but may be better unsaid.
  • Ditto for the post-Floyd, "The local insurgency resulted in extraordinary levels of property damage in Minneapolis".
  • Ditto for "the park board owns the city's canopy of trees,[389] and nearly all land that borders the city's diverse waterfronts."

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On those three: my thoughts would be to attribute use to attribute the "military precision" quote to the author and then leave off the extraordinary if the source doesn't use that language, the damage would be best to attribute to the author, and I'd recommend ommitting "diverse" in the waterfronts example. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Hog Farm. Hope I'm learning to identify some of the "tone" problems you point out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another. In the lead, "—the only natural waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River." Maybe shorten to, "the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River"? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is fine, unless you really want to trim down the article word count. I haven't forgotten about this review; I just haven't had time - June through August/September is just probably going to be a hectic time for me at work most years now. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good, we'll keep it. No worries, I'll hold on until you are free again. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming - I'm skipping the structural racism section for now as that is probably going to be the trickiest section to write and review and I'm simply too tired for that now.

So you know, that section is fairly tightly written and has been through WP:RSN.
"Sources disagree on the exact location and elevation of the city's highest point, which is cited as being between 965 and 985 feet (294 and 300 m) above sea level" - is Soper's 1915 figure really relevant anymore? The city has grown so much in the last 108 years that it's not surprising at all that more recent sources give a higher peak as the city expands
There's no reason to doubt Soper, the academic. Soper's estimate was 2 feet less ("965 feet, or thereabouts") than John Carman gave in 1975. And his location, identified by placenames that still exist, is loosely the same as contemporary sources. However, you have a good point. We can simplify the article by removing one old journal paper. So now we begin the disagreement in 1975 instead of 1915.
"Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023." - community blog, I don't know that this meets the high-quality RS bar for featured articles
Streets.mn was checked out at WP:RSN. So were several other sources, archived here. Everything passed (except one that had no comment) for noncontroversial use here. We only use it to define the term "non-conforming".
Would it be worthwhile to provide a sentence or two about the history of neighborhood development in Minneapolis? Right now the section is heavily weighted towards the zonining issue and a brief overview of neighborhood development would provide balance
For now, I resurrected the Neighborhood Revitalization Program that ran from 1991 to 2011, for which I have a book source. Brought this up to date with a combination of sources.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue, hopefully soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [5] which doesn't seem to support this at all
Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
  • "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ready for arts and culture, apologies this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The center expanded in 2005 with an addition by Herzog & de Meuron.[283]" - I'd cut this sentence; this is more relevant to the Center article than to the overall article on Minneapolis from the more high-level view we need to take with articles on major cities like this. I have similar thoughts to the extensive description of the enlargements to the Mia. The idea is to give a general overview of the topic of Arts in Minneapolis, and I don't know that a blow-by-blow description of building renovations is necessarily part of a general overview of that topic.
Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.
  • "helped make First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry the heart of American popular music" - "the heart of American popular music" is quite a strong statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice, I'd recommend using some form of direct attribution to a source here
Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.
  • I'm unsure of mentioning apparently non-notable concert venues by name. Theoretically any bar with a stage could be considered a concert venue, and we should only really be hitting the highlights here
Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.
  • "After refugees explained the old name was a reminder of their most dreadful days, the American Refugee Committee changed its name to Alight. Alight helps millions of refugees in Africa and Asia with water, shelter, and economic support" - this needs significant work. The connection to Minneapolis is not at any point stated, and the discussion about the name change is not relevant to the city of Minneapolis. I'm sure the organization does good work, but this isn't the place to elaborate too much on a single organization.
Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the historical museums section, also pinging in SandyGeorgia for another opinion on these points. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis hosts the world's only Somali history museum as of 2021" - The Somali government re-opened its national museum in 2020, and our article on the Somali Museum of Minnesota indicates that it's only possible its the only Somali history museum in the world. This seems to be an awfully strong claim to support with only a website seeking to highlight Minnesota tourism opportunities
Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.
  • "In 2016, following the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, Lynx captains wore black shirts as a protest by Black athletes for social change.[370]" - I'd argue that this belongs more in the article for the Lynx
Took it out.
  • "enabled Horace Cleveland to create his finest landscape architecture," - finest should be attributed to the specific author unless you can find a source indicating that this is a consensus view
Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.
  • "Ruhe stopped the state from building a highway through Minnehaha Park, a conflict that the park board appealed to and won in the US Supreme Court. During Ruhe's tenure, the board learned to accommodate growing public participation, and it became an environmental steward when faced with Dutch elm disease and improving water quality.." - is this from those pages in Smith?
Yes. It's a summary not a quote.
  • "In 2022, 500 participants[386] ages 14 to 24 served as Teen Teamworks recruits for on-the-job training in green careers[387] or as future park employees.[388] " - I don't know that this is actually relevant to include; it's not unusual at all for cities to involve teen park workers in things
I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

I'm open to discussing any of these as they could well be controversial; ready for the government section coming up next. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving my powder for the Media section, the only place I anticipate pushing back. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm have you been through Parks and recreation yet? I don't understand this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volunteer missionaries,[439] the Pond brothers got permission at Fort Snelling to teach new farming techniques and a new religion to Chief Cloud Man and his community on the east shore of Bde Maka Ska.[254]" - the first question is when this was occurring, and the who gave them permission is unclear as well. Is this from the Dakota, the US Army at Fort Snelling, or the territorial government?
Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.
  • "divided between community and magnet" - is it worth linking magnet school here?
Good idea, done.
  • "Some of the magazines published in the city are [...] Artful Living" - we shouldn't be sourcing this to the magazine's own "advertise with us" page
Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.
  • I also don't know that we should be listing the magazines for which we don't have an independent source noting its existence; I've found that independent RS sourcing is usually a good test as to if mentioning something is due weight or not
Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?
  • Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.
  • "about five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines" - cited source lists 6?
Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.
  • "Racially discriminatory federal housing policies starting in the 1930s "prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities", and "left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents."" - extensive quote should be attributed inline
Source identified inline.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now skimmed through pretty much the whole article except for the lead, although chunks of it only rather light skimming because I am rather worn out. Once this last batch reaches resolution and I've gone through the lead, I would prefer to have a fresh and more energetic set of eyes look over it before I take a fuller pass through the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States" - this feels like something that should be mentioned in the body
Added to Census and estimates.
  • Several of the nicknames/motto provided in the lead are not sourced there or anywhere else and should be sourced
You're right. Everything has a source now.
  • "and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout." - ideally we should be sourcing this major claim to something better than a commission apparently run by the city to show how great the city is
Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.
  • Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.
  • "The city's reputation for high quality of life notwithstanding," - I'm not seeing this general claim made directly in the body; for a statement as strong as this it should be worked into the body of the article and not just the lead
Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.
  • File:Log Drivers-by Michael Nowack-1881.jpg - Buidhe can explain this better than me but the licensing isn't as straightforward as it would seem here. The image may be from 1881, but we'd need proof of when it was first published because theoretically it could still be under copyright (the 1928 tag requires publishing by then). See Hirtle chart on Commons; I've had a painting from the 1860s rejected at a FAC or A-class image review before
Answered below to Buidhe.
 
  • File:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg - not sure on this one. The licensing claims that the copyright holder has released it, but the uploader to wikipedia doesn't seem to be the copyright holder and the file page indicates in multiple places that it would be copyright Larry Kanfer photography 2003. The original source link appears to be gone forever, so it may be better simply to replace this with another image of the lake. File:Minneapolis Skyline (234868322).jpg maybe?
OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.
  • Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look back later, but this is it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when the 1881 photograph was published it could still be under copyright.
The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) claims its website would be done last summer. I called them a few months ago and there is no recourse except to wait for them. ("Access to Collections online is temporarily unavailable for remote and in-person researchers.") We know that Michael Nowack, the photographer, published something in 1881 that MNHS states is public domain. I can't speak for the log drivers.
  • Removed until MNHS comes back online.
  • Their reply today says "Unfortunately, due to unforeseen technical issues, we do not currently have a date for when Collections Online will be available again." -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue I've noticed in excessively long sections such as "Lumber, waterpower, and flour milling" and single sentence paragraph in the demography section. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That single sentence was to differentiate between people from India who appeared in close proximity to American Indian reservations. Turns out that fixing chrono order was what we needed.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you recheck the what the source said on "In 1871, of the thirteen mills sawing lumber in St. Anthony, eight ran on water power and five ran on steam turbines" I believe that the steam turbine was not invented until 1884 and didn't come into real use until the 1900's. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. From page 146 of Agnes Larson's The White Pine Industry in Minnesota, A History: In 1871 thirteen mills were cutting lumber at St. Anthony Falls, giving employment to 831 people. Of those thirteen mills, eight were run by water power and five by steam turbine. The author mentions a "first-class" steam powered sawmill owned by Hersey, Staples and Company in Stillwater, Minnesota built in 1854 (page 17). Around there she writes, "Steam was beginning to come into its own." Her source is a book I've never seen: Hotchkiss, History of Lumber and Forest Industry of Northwest, p. 525, that is unfortunately not in the Internet Archive as far as I can see. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HathiTrust has a copy here. It appears Wikipedia's article on steam turbines needs updating, no? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. I double-checked another book The Falls of Saint Anthony by Lucile Kane. She says on page 108 that Another factor which contributed to the decline of sawmilling at the falls was steam power. As early as the 1850s and 1860s seven steam mills had operated at different times in the falls district. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the author made an error and should have said steam power or steam engines rather than steam turbines. I.E steam engines / steam power was prevalent then, steam turbines were still in future. But if the source said it, that's good enough from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the article to say "steam power". Thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review

As the article is getting close to Keep territory, it may be helpful to scrutinize the lead more closely. Does it truly summarize the high points? At WP:TFA, would the lead provide the material that would be highlighted in a blurb? Examples I suggest addressing

As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States.
Too much detail for the lead, and not really worthy of being the second line in the lead. I suggest removing the 46-th most bit to the body, and only mentioning in the lead "With a 2020 population of 429,954, it is the largest city in Minnesota."
Extra detail removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is tangled with nine mentions of Minneapolis and Minnesota; I suggest that Dying might find a way to smooth this out.
Hi. The lead was constructed for the most part here and here by a sockpuppet farm. I threw up my hands some time ago but am happy to help if I can. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minneapolis has its origins as the 19th century lumber and flour milling capitals of the world, and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout -->
Minneapolis was the 19th-century lumber and flour milling capital of the world and has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century.
Fixed.
waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River --> on the Mississippi River
Fixed.
on a section of land north of Fort Snelling.
Fixed.
Its growth is attributed. --> its growth was ? In the 19th century ?? Early growth was ??
Fixed.
metropolis located far from competing neighbors,[15] Minneapolis is the birthplace of General Mills, the Pillsbury brand, and the Target Corporation. ... No relationship between these two clauses
Fixed.

Part done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Dying, well-versed in fine-tuning leads towards writing the TFA blurb, will have a look and lend a hand. I think the lead could be much better. First pass only, will continue, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue my review on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying

thanks for the ping and praise, SandyGeorgia! SusanLesch, this will admittedly be the first time i contribute to either fac or far, so please let me know if there is anything i am doing incorrectly or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

offhand, three things about this lead jump out at me.

  • a decent number of statements appear to have been made as if minneapolis has something to prove. i think, to a neutral reader, this makes the city less impressive than it really is.
Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.
  • the lead seems to be a lot longer than those of comparable articles. because minneapolis is 46th on the list of u.s. cities by population, i also specifically looked at the articles for oakland (45th) and tulsa (47th), and both of them have leads that are roughly 20–30% shorter, even though they have longer article bodies.
Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles (Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.
  • considering that minneapolis has recently been highly prominent in world news due to an incident that sparked a worldwide protest movement, it seems strange that this only seems to be referenced obliquely in the lead. (full disclosure: i started a few of the articles related to the protests.) for comparison, the article leads for the cities of wuhan, beirut, and mariupol all not only explicitly mention the unfortunate events that have recently brought them international attention, but also provide links to articles that cover the events in further depth.
I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

would you prefer to address these points before i perform a more in-depth copyedit? dying (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's enough to start. Good to meet you, Dying. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Cleveland is the better example for comparison for the direction of the lead; it's a continuously maintained FA, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using non-FAs for guidance. SusanLesch are you comfortable then with having dying work directly on the lead? I see good room for reduction in the third paragraph and fifth (current city appointments are also recentism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. -15:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Grand; dying, one way to make work at FAR easier on other reviewers and the Coords who have to close is to start a sub-section on the talk page of this FAR, as you can see I've done. Then, when you're done, you can summarize back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on SandyGeorgia's review on talk in my sandbox. Making progress every day. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia and Dying: Done with SandyGeorgia's review. A couple questions and a note are marked. Dying, you could do our lead now if you can find the time. Sandy said she's busy elsewhere until at least Friday. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    apologies! my old machine recently gave up on me, and although i was lucky enough to be able to revive an even older machine, i've been falling behind in everything as a result, and i admittedly have not been able to prioritize this. i still intend to finish revising the lead, if that is okay. dying (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Climate -- the new growing zone map (https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/) has the entire city and much of the surrounding suburbs in zone 5a now. Can someone make this change?

Done. Thank you, Sanctacruce21. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, my understanding is that Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia's reviews are done (both were lengthy, detailed reviews). Dying had a machine failure so the lead remains about the same, but they were able to write a TFA blurb (on talk). I made a couple more improvements to the article and ran IABot last week. Generally we had no status change since November. A couple questions are outstanding on Sandy's review (on talk). Is anyone available to !vote keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @George Ho, Z1720, and Hog Farm: are you available? Sandy said in October "As the article is getting close to Keep territory...." She and I cleaned up this article over the past couple years. Sorry to ping you. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look but have no idea when I can get to it. I just moved last weekend; I'm not sure which box my primary laptop is in and we don't have reliable internet access set up yet. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hog Farm. While we're waiting I'll try to update Climate. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working our polls for the presidential primary in the next two weeks and turn into a pumpkin tomorrow until March 7. In the meantime I tried to recruit a weather expert at the WikiProject. (Outdated climate data seems to be a hurdle with lots of old FAs.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan - apologies for the delay in getting to this; this is at the top of my priority list now. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been pretty much addressed, but there's an RFC ongoing with this now, so I'll hold off on making a declaration for now, until things stabilize out. Hog Farm Talk 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC closed. Our perennial critic thanked me twice silently for the follow up so I think we're free to move on. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to do a final review of the article this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, again apologies for the dely

" renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint" - was this literally named "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua" as the text suggests or should this just be "Falls of St. Anthony" using a piped link for St. Anthony?
  • The former. Louis Hennepin named it the "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua", and said so in so many words about 10 times in his book. DeCarlo, the modern source, quotes him accurately. I'm not opposed to a shortened link but what we have now is more literally true. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862" - this seems more relevant to an article on either the University of MN or to some other article than one about the City of Minneapolis
  • Hog Farm, I don't understand. Why remove this? The main campus of the U of MN is in Minneapolis (as the lead says). It's enormous and contributes to the local economy. I found this morning: The university owns 30% of the city's publicly-owned land (about 84 acres) that is zoned for industrial uses (page 34). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's understandable then I guess. I'm ready to declare a keep here. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only major concerns I had with the early history material as rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update to anyone worried about the climate box, I updated the data so it goes back to 1873, with a note explaining where the weather station is. I also removed some unnecessary parts of the table that aren't accessible in the NOWData source. Thanks SusanLesch (talk · contribs) for reaching out to the weather WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worked out on Minneapolis talk page. I was mistaken that 2020 climate normals are outdated. Next update will be 2030. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying and all, I wrote a new lead for discussion on the Minneapolis talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is done. My understanding is that's the last step of FAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

edit

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "Minneapolis has cold, snowy winters and hot, humid summers, as is typical in a continental climate. The difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is 58.1 °F (32.3 °C)." Needs a citation, especially for the first half of this sentence.
Good catch. I asked for help in WikiProject Weather.
  • I don't think the charity section is needed: the first paragraph can be merged into another section if it is to be kept, but the sentence about Alight seems promotional for the charity and I'm unsure why this is highlighted when there are probably several other charities in the Minneapolis area.
Removed, although I don't know of any other Minneapolis charity of Alight's proportions.
  • I think the "Annual events" section can be redistributed to other sections. For example, the information about the marathon can be in the sports section, and the Fringe Festival can be in the Arts section.
I did this reluctantly because WP:USCITIES recommends a separate section for recurring events. I removed the section, and as you suggest, distributed the most important six or so, and omitted about ten. It looks all right.
  • "Krista Tippett, awarded a Peabody and the National Humanities Medal, produced the On Being project from her Minneapolis studio." This feels like trivia and should either be expanded upon, incorporated somewhere else, or removed.
Removed.
  • I suggest reworking the "Transportation" section as there are lots of short paragraphs at the end.
Done.
  • The George Floyd information seems bloated and off-topic for the "Government" section. I suggest that much of this information be moved to "History" and trimmed.
Because oversight of both consent decrees was approved in February, I was able to cut a whole paragraph. Sorry I must push back on your comments. Mr. Floyd is not off topic, nor does it all belong in History. His death profoundly affected the police force for at least the last four years and it will in the coming four to ten years.
I think Floyd is a significant event that needs to be mentioned in this article. When I skimmed through the article I saw the multiple paragraphs on this subject in the Government section and gave it a thorough read, which is what I used to base my opinion on. There was a lot of information in this section about police reform, which surprised me because usually government sections for cities concern the structure of their municipal government, who their elected representatives are, and significant changes to these structures. While the operation of the police could be part of this section, I am unsure if it should have the amount of space that it does in this section.
Furthermore, Floyd is a significant event in this city's history, but the city's history is hundreds or thousands of years old, and I'm concerned that there might be a recency bias to include this much information on the topic in this area of the article. Los Angeles has one sentence about Rodney King, though it probably needs to be expanded. New York City has a couple of sentences, mostly in its history section, about 9/11 and its aftereffects. As of posting this comment, this article has two significant paragraphs about Floyd: one in the history section and one in government. Considering the length of the article, I would ask that editors consider if that information would be better on daughter articles and if it can be summarised even more in this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have only one sentence about Mr. Floyd in Government, followed by crime statistics and the consent decree.
  • "The Indigenous Dakota people believed in the Great Spirit, and were surprised that not all European settlers were religious." This feels like trivia and I think it can be removed.
Removed.
  • This is a long article. While this is to be expected with an article about a city, I think work can be done to reduce the number of words by moving information to other locations and removing promotional language throughout. I suggest that a subject-matter expert do a readthrough to see what can be moved.
Good idea. Asked editors in WikiProject Minnesota.
  • I added alt text to some of the images.
Thank you.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you very much for your review. Every point you raised is attended to above, with the exception of the two weather citations that I deferred to the WikiProject. You were right, the Floyd paragraph in History has been trimmed. Waiting for help, I made about 6K of article cuts but stopped after this one hurt. It might have done damage (by omitting hydroelectricity and revitalization of the riverfront).
Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting prose is tough but I think it's for the best, as it helps with load times and makes it more likely that the article will be read by our readers. I hope you will consider moving this information to a daughter article so that the sources are not lost, especially information in the history section. Are you ready for me to take another skim through the article? Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'll move that chunk to History of Minneapolis. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer read, so this will take more time. I am performing a copyedit while I go, so feel free to revert and discuss below anything I change.

  • " After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862." When reading this sentence, it seemed too specific for what the rest of the paragraph was saying. Why is information about the university here?
The year, 1862, is in chrono order. Removed this.
Restored it. Do you agree it works better in the Education section?
  • Yes, this would work better in the education section, with some context given for it. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1855 with a charter from the legislature, Steele and associates opened the first bridge across the Mississippi; the toll bridge cost pedestrians three cents" Why is this important for the history of the city, or can it be removed?
Removed.
  • "1989 Minnesota Archaeological Society analysis of the Minneapolis riverfront describes the use of water power in Minneapolis between 1880 and 1930 as "the greatest direct-drive waterpower center the world has ever seen." This feels more like commentary and less like history, so I think it can be removed to decrease the wordcount here.
Removed.
  • "Minneapolis earned the nickname "Mill City."" This comes before the information about the mills. If the mills gave the city its nickname, I suggest putting this afterwards, adding information about when the nickname was used, and stating that the mills gave the city this nickname.
Sourced. Kept as part of intro.
Cited founding of Washburn-Crosby and General Mills.
  • I don't think the first paragraph of the "Other industries develop" section is necessary, as the information is intended to be humorous, not factual, or the information is present later in the article.
Removed the whole paragraph.

Those are my thoughts for now. Stopping at "Other industries develop" and hope to continue later. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far. One question above for you. (I think the university is too big to ignore that its land was more or less stolen.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • There are a lot of businesses listed in "Other industries develop". This section struggles to connect the businesses with the history of the city: how did these businesses affect the city? Also, lots of the information is cited to the company's website. Do secondary sources think these businesses are notable to Minneapolis's history? If not, they should be removed.
Onan has one company citation, however Onan's notability is cited to Stipanovich. (There aren't "lots of" these, only one.)
  • The first paragraph of "Social tension" seems to be a list of facts, with no cohesion to it.
You removed the topic sentence of that paragraph.
Interestingly you seem to remove topic sentences and transitional sentences. Even though that kind of edit logically cuts the word count, I prefer to have the breathers. They're like asides that don't require hard thought.
I undid deletions of topic sentences twice in History. Topic sentences are needed! They are designed to unite "a list of facts, with no cohesion". I added one topic sentence "Disparate events defined the late 20th century." which will function once as a catch-all.
  • I think the second paragraph, talking about the Black population of the city, might be better in the demographics section.
It's about any non-White race (not only the Black population). Agree this can be done. Still I wonder if having the topic here helps the reader understand Structural racism which now comes first. Does it work in the new spot?
  • The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline. In addition, subsections within the History section are also divided by theme or just randomly placed in a new paragraph. This makes the section difficult to read and hard to find information, especially in the later parts of the section. Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources. I suggest that this whole section be re-written and organised chronologically. This will greatly help with reducing the amount of text in this article. For an example of how a history section of a city can be organised, take a look at Hamilton, Ontario.
  • Disagree with what you say here. No low-quality sources or non-notable information was added. If anything the quality of sources has improved since 2007. The Works cited section is new.
  • The entire History section is already in close-to-strict chronological order, proceeding from 1000 A.D. to 2020. Yes, there are a few exceptions, likely to be found at the end of a section to bring that topic up to the present day. (See note below about removing everything after Mr. Floyd.)
  • Ways to solve what you're finding:
  • One, omit or footnote information that doesn't strictly follow a timeline, we hope reducing work for the reader. (For example, remove "The city's first commercial sawmill was built in 1848, and the first gristmill in 1849.")
  • Second, rewrite to eliminate awkward jumps in the timeline (for example, drop the first date: "In 1886, businessman George D. Munsing built a textile business called Munsingwear to sell wool underwear covered in silk. The business lasted a century and in 1923 it was the world's largest manufacturer of underwear.").
  • Third, the Structural racism section is undated and could be moved away.

Those are my thoughts. Finished with the history, will move on to other sections later. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My husband and I are sick with the flu (not COVID). I'll try to work at your other comments ASAP. Hamilton history looks nice! Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I was ticked off yesterday at the clearcut approach, but seeing that helps me understand. Thanks for your review. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, can you please sign off on the 3-point plan above? Two editors are waiting to execute it. (I am back 80+ percent.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I think this is good! Most of the information is useful and has great sources, but would be better in other sections or articles. Examples include: the info about businesses, which can move to Economy, and the demographics information can go to the Demographics section. I look forward to reading through this when it is complete. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's possible to move the businesses to Economy where they'd stand out as WP:UNDUE, and we'd have to add origin stories for Target Corp, Ameriprise, Thrivent. The Economy section is better as it is—high level. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Z1720, the History section is down from 7000 to 4500 words. Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the History section. Are we good, Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

edit

Trying to consolidate keep !votes. Postponing seems more and more pointless.

  • SandyGeorgia, I'd like to see all your work bear fruit. Can you !vote to keep today? Thank you for questioning claims over the years.
  • Hog Farm, my teacher on MOS:PEACOCK, declared keep a month ago. Language was toned down throughout.
  • Buidhe, thank you for your image review. Do you think it is ever safe to assume a daguerreotype from the 1850s is public domain? If you don't, I will remove it. Pending copyright information from the Minnesota Historical Society (which they seem to have buried), we removed a log jam from 1881. Can you sign off on this article?

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates

edit
Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.
Notified: Angmering, WikiProject Television, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 2024-05-09

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the Poor formatted references, unsourced statements, unsourced voice actors, appearances section are all unsourced, the use unreliable sources, and lacking of reception section. Anyway, most of the sections more likely needed to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Dmoon1, WikiProject Books, WikiProject History, WikiProject United States History, WikiProject African diaspora, 2023-04-14

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the overreliance on the book as a source, creating WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. There are six sources listed in "Further reading" that are not used in the article, while the "Methodology and sources" section is almost entirely sourced to the book. There is also a long "Criticism" section, which should be reworked into a "Reception" section to avoid WP:POV concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have no experience regarding FA/FAR processes, however about the "primary" aspect, per WP:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOT, isn't that what you're supposed to do with the contents of books? E.g. "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Are the rules for this different for FAs, and the contents of the book itself need to be cited to secondary sources - because if so then the MOS directly says otherwise. The other concerns are valid but seem more fixable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think fixing the Criticism section is hard, because that section already incorporates both positive and critical responses. Simply rename the section (or add more positive reception if it exists: it might not). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the book is fine when summarising what's in it, but for anything more sophisticated or analytical -- like, for example, a section on its methodology and use of sources -- we need secondary sources. Usually, the book itself should only really be cited in the "Summary" or "Content" section: reviews or responses should be the main or only voice in the rest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC No edits to address my concerns. While plot sections can cite the book, too much of the other information is also cited to the book which makes this article too reliant on the topic of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Nagromtpc, WikiProject Biology WikiProject Molecular Biology, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

edit

This article was Featured in 2007, and since then, new research has been done about exosome.These things that I mention below need to be covered in this article:

  • @Pereoptic: Thanks for posting this here. Has this been discussed on the article's talk page, per step 1 above? If not, I recommend to the FAR co-ords that we hold this article in FAR for at least 4 weeks to give editors time to review the article and make changes. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: No, I didn't discussed it on the talk page because major changes need to be made on the article and the nominator is no longer active. Pereoptic Talk✉️   17:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Step 1 is not optional. Putting this FAR on hold for a month would be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just making sure @WP:FAR coordinators: is aware of the need to place this one on hold. Hog Farm Talk 14:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pereoptic, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Sorry, I just realized that I should have brought this up on the talk page as well (no one pinged me).   Done Pereoptic Talk✉️   18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello again, it has been more than a month since I raised the problems of the article on the talk page. Pereoptic Talk✉️   07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to FARC no significant edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.

Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about how to handle a Featured article review after an article is split (added: and about the 1e stability criteria) moved to talk page here. The consensus was to proceed with a FAR on this article, and the new article would be processed through FAC when/if ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the quality, but FWIW, I don't think that this fails 1e because I read that criterion as being more focused on edit wars or routine poor quality editing that isn't being addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct (that is also covered in the discussion moved to talk, linked above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if we keep it as a featured article? If you want to demote it make it a good article instead. but i recommend keeping it featured. It's a "forgotten" building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:10, November 13, 2023‎ (talk) 120.28.226.197 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't go from WP:FA class directly to WP:GA class without a separate good article nomination. In any case, as the nominator of this FAR, I'm not recommending demoting the article at this time; I'm merely bringing it up for review. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP 120, please have a look at the instructions at the top of the FAR page; there are several discussion phases in the FAR process, and being on this page doesn't mean demotion is the only outcome. Also, in the archives at WT:FAR, you'll see many discussions of the many reasons we don't/can't make delisted FAs into GAs. If you have other questions about that, we can help you out at WT:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opniion of this article review:
Keep - A "Forgotten" 9/11 building, As a FA it'll make more people have knowledge of this building and structure on and after 9/11. Article may need some minor changes 120.28.224.32 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FA status is not based on the merit or interestingness of the topic, but rather on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if we give the page some changes? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this FAR, to clarify, I nominated this article for FAR precisely because I wanted to know what changes need to be made for this article to retain FA status. I certainly want the article to keep its bronze star, but it is an old FA that has also just undergone a major split. This is why I'm asking for feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts here:

  • "H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture (2007). The New York Academy of Sciences (brochure). H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture." - I don't like the idea of using advertising materials to support text about what this company added to the building; we need something secondary to ensure that we are avoiding puffery/undue weight issues
  • I have a similar concern about the use of the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill book to support what Skidmore, Owings & Merrill added to the building; we don't want the article to contain essentially resume material for the designers
    • Hmmm. On the one hand, it is a primary source, but on the other hand this is basically just WP:ABOUTSELF information, rather than critical commentary added to the article. Nonetheless, I've tried to add secondary sources (mostly the NYT) where possible. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor while space remained available for lease" - we can't really state that this actually happened using a source from August 2006 - it only supports that this was planned to happen
    • I haven't fixed this yet because I have not been able to find a reliable source that was published after this exhibit ended. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I have now fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased" - ummm... the source for this is from August 2006 and says that the building was 10-percent leased then
    • I removed this and added detail about how the building was 10% leased in Aug 2006. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "law firm Wilmer Hale" - source for this is about a different law firm named Darby & Darby - our article on WilmerHale does not mention Darby at all; I'm not sure how this supports the content at all
    • I have no idea how that happened, but basically WilmerHale leased some space in 2011, and Darby & Darby (which does not seem to have an article here) leased space in 2006. I've removed Darby & Darby. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After AMN AMRO was acquired by the Royal Bank of Scotland," - is this an error for ABN AMRO?
  • " Silverstein Properties also has offices and the Silver Suites executive office suites[30] in 7 World Trade Center, along with office space used by the architectural and engineering firms working on 1 World Trade Center, 150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street.[31" - MOS:CURRENT issues
    • I changed it to "had", since this is no longer fully true. At least, not the second part of the sentence (1 WTC, for example, has been complete for nearly a decade now). Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole paragraph beginning with "The space occupied by Mansueto Ventures has been designed to use the maximum amount of natural light and has an open floor plan ..." - is this level of intricate detail about the way a few individual lessees have arranged their space really due weight?
    • Not really. I moved this to the "Architecture" section and trimmed these sentences. Also, I removed the H3 reference - the entire building was designed with energy-efficient features, so there's no need to single out a specific tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to work to occur, and probably some additional spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I have to go to bed. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start to fix this page up to keep it as a featured article. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments HF. I've addressed most of these now. As you can probably tell, most of the article was written a long time ago, so it's highly probable that the article's text-source integrity has degraded along the way. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed does need work to occur, Hog Farm, and What things also need to be changed? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius - Do you have access to the NYT articles? I generally don't, so that would hamper a comprehensive spot check from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, yes, I do. I can check the NYT articles and fix any problems that I find. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Late to this but is there any other problems that need to really be fixed? 120.28.224.22 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius, are there still problems that need to be fixed? 120.28.229.213 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, some of the older sources may need spotchecks, and I still need to check the remaining NYT sources (I only checked about five at random and didn't record which ones I looked at). An uninvolved editor should check the prose as well; Hog Farm already conducted one check, but there may be something I missed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources may need to be fixed and spotchecked? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late response. I meant that someone would have to go through all of the sources, select some randomly (like 10-20%), and check to see whether they verify the text in question. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked some of the other NYT sources and didn't find many problems (I corrected the issues I did find). I'm waiting for someone else to review the other sources, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:

  • 3a - checks out to archived version (current version is just a picture of a building?)
  • 40 - checks out
  • 75 - article has "The building was promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. upon its completion"; the source (a promotional listing) has "The 52-story "green" tower is one of the safest office buildings in the country" which is a less strong claim than what we have in our article
  • 2c - checks out
  • 25 - article has "Prior to opening, in March 2006, the new building's lobby and facade as a filming location for the movie Perfect Stranger."; the source has "A floor of the Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed building will be transformed into a futuristic office with flat-screen panel monitors" when discussing the use as a filming location for Perfect Stranger; "A floor" does not necessarily equal "lobby and facade". I will also note that the sentence in question in our article is a sentence fragment
  • 59 - checks out
  • 8 - article has "Opened in 1987, it was the seventh structure constituting the original World Trade Center building complex" - source supports the 1987 opening but I'm struggling to find where it has this as the seventh structure; the source mentions North Tower, South Tower/Two WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 4 WTC, but that's only five before 7 WTC is opened

Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed these. I will likely have to take a more extensive look at the sources, since 3/7 refs not fully checking out is indeed problematic.
As for the original 7 WTC being the seventh structure in the original WTC, the first complex contained the Marriott World Trade Center, which was unofficially known as "3 World Trade Center". The buildings weren't completed in order, anyway, as 3 WTC was the sixth building to be completed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the article is mostly fine, with the caveat that it's about the building that was completed in 2006 and is thus proportionally short. All that is really needed is for someone else to spot check the other sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC for now; I don't completely trust the source-text integrity yet and I don't have time/source access to resolve this entirely myself. Hog Farm Talk 15:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: You mentioned above taking a more extensive look at the sources - are you intending to do that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I still plan to do so. It won't be an easy or quick process, however. Epicgenius (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Epicgenius: Could you give us an idea on timeline? Wondering whether this should remain in FAR for the moment or be moved. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it looks like I will not have time to check the rest of the references for several weeks. It may be better to move this to FARC if that is the case. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no significant edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

edit

I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

edit

Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:

  • Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
  • Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
  • Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. VRXCES (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. VRXCES (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. VRXCES (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. VRXCES, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. VRXCES (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No work has been done on the plot section, which should be reduced and all of the inline citations to quotes of the game should be removed. I searched for sources per Extraordinary Writ above and found one source, [6], but struggled to find others in my quick search. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: [7], May 2022

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns I raised a year ago about the sourcing and comprehensiveness, which have yet to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working. § Lingzhi (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to Buidhe's comments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buidhe there is an over reliance on one text and this does mean that perhaps all the relevant literature has not been explored. Bayne, Belmonte, Carey, Furneux, Hennell, Pura, Reed, Rodriquez, Vaughan texts appear in the sources list but have not been cited within the article. Article does appear salvageable with some work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely revamped the referencing system. Not saying it's perfect; just saying it is now much, much, much easier to work with. Replacing all the Hague stuff becomes easier (but still not easy), forex. More later. Hoping others will pitch in too. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my plan: First I have to finish a Talk:Logic/GA1. After that, I'm gonna turn to Wilberforce (unless someone comments on my poor, unloved FAC). For Wilberforce, I'm gonna use my sandbox extensively. Others will be free to use it too, if anyone so desires. There I'll make a bullet-point list of all the Hague 2007 cited text such as "which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11]" When I find it in a better source, I'll strike through that item in my sandbox and change the cite in article text... FAR is supposed to take 2 weeks? It is very possible I will not finish before then. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

() A cold-hearted and selfish thought has occurred to me: if User:Slp1 declines to help, then I should just let it be delisted. Then I can fix everything at my leisure (it's gonna take time!) and renominate. So that's what I'll do. § Lingzhi (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Email Slp1?
This FAR was launched on 8 May; Slp1 has not posted since 7 May, so we can guess they haven't yet seen the FAR (someone might consider emailing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an email address on her user page. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Email this user" is in the standard toolbox on the left-hand side of the page at User:Slp1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, NO, it seems it's under TOOLS in the skin I use. I did CTRL-F and did not see it... because it is under TOOLS... but thank you for telling me... and now I will look under TOOLS for email address... will email her... tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warning that posting on someone's talk page already sends an email to the address on record (there is no way to disable this as far as I know). However, it's always possible that she might respond to a second email. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you have your Preferences --> Notifications set that way (I don't, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself? However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.
The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews [8][9];[10][11][12][13][14]. It has been widely cited according to google scholar [15]. Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte, Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old. The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.
There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV in the facts cited from Hague. Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.
The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":
  • [16]-Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
  • [17] Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
  • [18] The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
  • [19] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
  • [20] William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.
The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources. None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this [21] which is rather old (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control. Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest) but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.
That's all I have time for now. Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC. But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again, but would welcome other eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done. The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: Is the source RS, or not? @Slp1: You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something. It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence (talkcontribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

Slp1 is this ready for a new look yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Life is busy. Trying to finish it off soon. Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slp1 made some edits the past few days, so work seems to be starting up again. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I am pretty much done. Sorry that it has taken so long but I have many things going on in my life at present. A quick report:
In general, it was good to go over the text. Some errors and some unnecessary digressions had been introduced, so a freshen up was needed.
After considerable searching, I did find enough reliable sources about Wilberforce's name being used by conservative Christian groups in N. America, so I added a couple of sentences to the Legacy section. [22]
My memory was failing me when I said that the capital punishment issue was missing from the article. I It was already there, but I have expanded a bit based on the Devereaux article.[23] [24]
The main remaining issue is referencing. I would like to know what the rules are about this. When the article passed FA in 2008 we used Harvard for books (to give page numbers) and citation templates for other sources [25]. I guess the rules have changed since then? Lingzi very kindly changed everything to Harvard but I find this very difficult to work with. You have to add and delete references in two places. It is a buggy. I don't think it is ideal for readers as they have to look in two places to see a reference. It also increases the maintenance issues as people tend to use citation templates when they add material which somebody who knows how Harvard works (ie not me!) then has to convert to the Harvard system. Anyway, I gather people have strong feelings about this, but for what it is worth my preference would be either to have the old mixed system or to convert to the citation templates totally. I will do it, although I will be very sorry about Lingzhi's work going to waste. However, I think it will be easier to keep up to snuff. Please advise Slp1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "rules" have not changed; an overall change to sfn was not indicated, a mixed system is still accepted, and you can change it back to what it was, as long as it is consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting to see if other had comments on this, but it seems not. Okay, I will start the process of restoring the former mixed system. I continued to be very pressed for time due to family issues, but will make a start on a draft page today or tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, how's it going? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much done. It is here [26]. I cannot figure out how to make note b have a reference. If anybody can help that would be wonderful. I am also not sure about the names and order of the sections of references so welcome comments and suggestions about that too.. as well as about anything else of course.Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 Would it help to look at the notes at J. K. Rowling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea!! Sorry should have thought of something similar myself!! I don't have time now, but maybe later. Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have finished my labours, for now at least. It is ready for others to take a look.Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been cleaned up a ton for which I thank slp1 and other editors who helped. Reading through the changes made since the FAR nomination, it's clear that most of the sources added are improvements. However, I did notice one source—Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce—that I just can't agree is a high quality RS. The author is not a historian, rather an evangelist and theologian, and I cannot find any independent sources attesting to the accuracy of the book. (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. That source was in the article at the original FA and I agree it is not the best. It was supported in its entirety by Pollock, so was not actually needed. I have replaced it with Tomkins. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have no objection to keeping at this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time seeing how

  • His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation ...

summarizes the content of this section. First, it reads as if conservatism = politically repressive legislation, which doesn't follow. Second, the section reads as if the issues were that a) he opposed unions, and b) he wasn't as active in advancing legislation on national relative to international issues, and c) he had (then) traditionally conservative religious views on women, but offsetting that we have the whole paragraph beginning with "More progressively, ... " which includes multiple issues as well as his philanthropy and seems overlooked in the lead summary. I'm concerned that the lead gives more weight to certain criticisms than to certain beliefs and achievements. Do the sources support the wording more progressively? Those words seem to indicate that those achievements were somehow at odds with his conservatism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that your assumptions hold. In this case he supported legislation that was politically and socially repressive of unions, Catholics, and people trying to organize "seditiously". The supporters of the legislation were largely British conservatives. It does not require any assumption about different varieties of conservatism over time and in different countries. That said, if you have an idea of better phrasing you could propose it here. I deleted the phrase "more progressively" as I don't think it's necessary. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there is a difference in what 'conservative/conservatism' means in different countries that is causing difficulties, but multiple reliable sources confirm that Wilberforce was (small c) conservative (in the sense that he did not believe in significant changes to society), and that as a result he often supported repressive legislation and did not support progressive reforms. A wide range sources mention this from (big C) Conservatives (William Hague) to religious historians (Andrew Walls to the more left wing American journalist/historian Adam Hochschild.
  • Hague in the bio: "Such views were pure Wilberforce: for although he spearheaded the abolitionist campaign and led so many other endeavours on the basis of justice, fairness, and concern for the poor or destitute, he was no political radical. He was utterly conservative when it came to the defence of the constitution or the existing political order, seeing revolution or anything approaching it as hostile both to religion and to wise and considered leadership" p.255; "It is largely because of Wilberforce’s attitude towards domestic discontent after the war that he has sometimes been seen as having a narrow and unbending view of British society, confirming the impression made to history by his support for the Combination Act in the 1790s that he was the enemy of many progressive political causes."p.444 "The seeming contradictions of Wilherforce’s life have always made him difficult to unravel and understand: a man of conservative disposition who devoted much of his life to one of the great progressive causes of his time";p 505 . Note in particular how the word conservative and progressive are used by a Conservative.
  • Walls 2023 "Although Wilberforce and his colleagues were vigorous campaigners on such issues, they were often conservative on domestic social issues. A Baptist like Carey might welcome the French Revolution, at least in its early stages; Wilberforce trembled at it and supported all the British goverment's repressive legislation in the wake of it. The political reflexes of Wilberforce were invariably conservative. He had no vision of a new society . He thought, indeed, that the British constitution already embodied all the excellencies….. This is no social revolutionary. He acknowledges inequality, even that inequality produces evils, but does not expect to these to change, does not seem to think of them within the sphere or public policy." p 70 pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover
  • Hochschild "Within a few years of Bennet Langton’s dinner party, West Indian planters would be burning Wilberforce in effigy; later, it was reported, runaway slaves in the Jamaican backcountry would be praying to Saint Wilberforce. It was a most unlikely fate for a gentle, impractical man who, on almost every other major issue, was profoundly conservative. He was against increasing the tiny number of Britons with the right to vote, fearful of any attempt to mobilize public opinion, and dismayed by members of the lower classes or women who questioned their assigned places in the social order.” p 124 Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no recent major edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain what specific concerns have not been addressed? I have worked hard on this article over the years and I don’t see any that I or others haven’t addressed. Slp1 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slp1: Sorry that I didn't respond before. I based my conclusion on the article history, which seemed to show a stalled nomination. Have buidhe's concerns about the overreliance on Hague been addressed? Has a search for more sources been conducted? Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said above that I don't object to keeping at this point. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all the issues were responded to/addressed, as Buidhe says. It is pretty demoralizing that people vote to delist without actually reading even the discussion. It seems that this part of Wikipedia is under-resourced, as reviewers are needed who take the time to review the article and the discussion and either come up with additional issues or vote to keep. --Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response everyone: it has been hard to find time to sit down and do a review. Here are some comments:

  • For the images, I added alt text and changed px to upright.
  • I wish the lede mentioned something about his legacy after he died.
  • I started reading through the article. I've done some copyedits, but also removed information that concerned the abolitionist movement, but did not directly relate to Wilberforce's biography. I suggest that this information be moved to other articles so that this biography can remain focused on Wilberforce. Feel free to revert if anyone thinks the information should be in the article, but please note below why you think this is important information for this specific article.

I am pausing at "Early parliamentary action" because I have to go, but I will try to continue at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished reviewing the article. I think it's in good shape now, though I did remove a lot of information that I thought was off-topic for this article and not necessary to understand Wilberforce's biography. Although I'm not happy with the inconsistent citation styles throughout (some book sources get a Harv template, others get a ref tag) this is something that could be resolved later. For now, I can declare a keep opinion, pending comments about the information I removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-02-10

Review section

edit

This 2006 FA was nominated by an editor who has made one Wikipedia edit since 2013, and has not edited the article since 2007. The article has no main watchers and has not been maintained to standard. The article was notified last year for original research, over-reliance on single sources, MOS issues, and citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]