Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts

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

Augustus

edit
Notified: PericlesofAthens, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Ancient Near East, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Rome, Vital articles/Level/3

As noted in August 2023 by UndercoverClassicist, this 2007 FA contains significant sourcing issues:

  • Heavy overuse of one source (Eck & Takács 2003)
  • Use of dated secondary sources, some of which are nearing a century old
  • Uncritical use of ancient primary sources as citations.
  • Underuse of high-quality modern sources, some of which lie unused in the "Further reading" section
  • Not enough detail on legacy and assessment in post-classical politics.

These problems call into question the article's adherence to FA criteria 1b), 1c), and 1d). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ifly6, who was in that conversation (and will probably have a valuable view on the sourcing), but I'm probably not going to have the time to take them up on their offer a proper collaboration at the moment, if indeed it still stands. Scanning back over the article quickly, I think what I wrote in 2023 is still true. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Carlstak and T8612:, who were in the discussion as well. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for letting me know about the review! It was quite a long time ago when I wrote the article and submitted it for Featured status, back when I was in college! I'll have a look at it over the weekend when I have a chance. Hopefully I will have some time next week to work on improving things here. Pericles of AthensTalk 11:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

edit
Notified: User talk:Hotwiki, Notified: User talk:TarnishedPath, Notified: User talk:Rhodes00, Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, 1, 2, 3, 4,

This 2005 FA BLP has some glaring prose and quality of writing issues; with several of the very long paragraphs having some fancruft issues and too-close paraphrasing from journalists and music critics. And generally the article, like Ms. Minogue, is in a very different state than it was when it was listed as a FA. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PHShanghai, did you discuss these issues on the article's talk page before nominating here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've discussed all of these issues on the talk page for the last year or so. This is the most recent discussion, but the talk page discussions have been going since late 2023. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Devol

edit
Notified: Adam Bishop, Yannismarou, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Law

As noted in February 2025 by Hog Farm, this 2004 FA suffers from sourcing issues. There is considerable uncited material, while several unreliable sources (most primary and medieval, one modern and not meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP) are used for referencing. As such, FA criterion 1c) is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, the standards were so much lower back then...I can still picture myself writing this in my dorm room as first-year grad student. Yannismarou greatly improved upon the original, but there is still a lot of work to do. It could be brought up to the current standards, I think, although I doubt that I have the time to do it myself right now. I have no objection to de-listing it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm talk 18:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Cooley

edit
Notified: Legionarius, Horologium, WP Florida, WP Bio, WP Politics noticed February 23, 2025

Concerns I raised in February on the article's talk page about source quality and original research have not been addressed or responded to. Hog Farm talk 21:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware

edit
Notified: User talk:CrazyC83, tropical cyclone Wikiproject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it should probably be merged. The Isabel article is under 5,000 words, so this sub-article could fit in its entirety, even though a lot of the information is redundant with other states in the Mid-Atlantic. I was the original writer, and wrote the rest of the Isabel series. The original FAC even had some opposition due to its short length, so I don't think the FARC will be that controversial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Correct, there was a lot of duplicate information across various states from when they had all separate sub-articles. Such as FEMA declarations or states of emergency. Similarly, multiple instances of road flooding or power outages or downed trees or watches and warnings don't need to be repeated across each state. That's the kind of information that, when this article is merged, would not be included, which is why I feel this article could be merged easily. So unless you can point to specific notable information that was excluded from other articles, then I don't feel that should apply to this FARC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the total amount of power outages in Pennsylvania is there, a lot of information more specific to the storm was cut. All information on Pennsylvania’s rainfall total was cut too. Rainfall totals in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Furthermore, all information on West Virginia was removed. 2600:387:15:5314:0:0:0:4 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wrong about WV, but I think at least state maximums should be recorded - also, 3” is regionally significant, representing ~75% of a months average precip. Also, all information on wind gusts in PA was removed, with some of them being near 50 mph. I think it’s too much information being removed. 2600:387:15:5317:0:0:0:7 (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should state maximums be included? Half of New England states only got an inch of rainfall. That's borderline trivial, which would make Isabel fail the FA criteria for a different reason. As for wind gusts, Isabel's article literally has two different PA wind gusts. I think you are being too picky when it comes to mergers, and I don't think any of this means that the Delaware sub-article should stay. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean, one inch of rainfall is highly significant in regions of the country. Hurricane Hilary, a FA, mentions the 2.1” of rain in Hilltop, AZ. 2600:387:15:5317:0:0:0:7 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • One inch of rainfall in New England is completely different than two inches of rainfall in the desert. As a reminder for what Wikipedia is not, it is not a directory or an indisriminate collection of information. The rainfall totals need to matter for them to be in an article. At this point, your comments don't help much for this FARC, sorry to be blunt. The point stands with this nomination - the Delaware sub-article can be merged easily without loss of content, and that the Isabel article has not suffered from the mergers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)}[reply]

Stephen Crane

edit
Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject New York, WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject Florida, WikiProject Literature, Yllosubmarine

As noted in November 2022 by Buidhe, the referencing in this 2008 FA is unclear and incomplete, and Sorrentino 2014, a work described as "the best biography", "a major and indispensable account", and "the standard source", is used minimally.

I also believe less superficial issues are extant. 60% of this ~10,000-word article is devoted to a biography which spanned just 28 years. This section is bloated by many extraneous quotes and details which greatly lengthen it.

Moreover, overviews such as this encyclopedia entry and this bibliography show a much greater emphasis on literature analysis than this article reflects (currently, the Fiction and Poetry section is just over 25% of the article's prose). There are several aspects the article doesn't touch on at all: for example, the biographical fabrications of Thomas Beer have been the focus of three sources but are not mentioned in the article.

In summary, I think the article needs improvement to meet FA criteria 1a), 1b), 1c), 1d), and 2c). As a rough estimate, I'd suggest that the "Biography" section be cut by a couple of thousand words, and the literary analysis extended by a commensurate amount, with source improvement, if the article is to keep FA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Dean

edit
Notified: WikiProject Weather, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject Caribbean, Plasticup

As noted in December 2021 by Hurricane Noah, this 2008 FA has several problems:

As a result, the article does not meet FA criteria 1b), 1c) and 2c). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank

edit
Notified: Wikiproject Jewish Women, Wikiproject Jewish history, [2]
@Ali Beary: please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there have been issues with cleanup tags for over a year, and there appears to have been no attempt to resolve these issues. This is an issue with criterions 1c and 2c. The issues are as follows:

In the paragraphs beginning with In May 1940 and In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn, there are unreliable source tags in the last sentence.

There is a "who?" cleanup tag after In January 2022, some investigators.

In the middle of the paragraph beginning with Witnesses later testified, there is a tag requesting a better source.

Near the end of the paragraph starting with On 19 August 2022, there is a clarification needed tag.

There's not many, but I believe that an article isn't good enough for FA if there's cleanup tags. Thank you! Ali Beary (talk!) 18:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into the points you listed:
  • In May 1940: source replaced
  • In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
  • In January 2022, some investigators: clarified
  • Witnesses later testified: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
  • On 19 August 2022: clarified
– Editør (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali Beary, could you explain the issues with the two remaining tagged sources so it is clear what needs to be done to remove the tags? – Editør (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the two remaining cleanup templates and explained why in the first and second edit summary. I believe all issues in this review have now been resolved. – Editør (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør, what do you mean in the first edit summary by "with Wikipedia pages as sources"? Ali Beary (talk!) 12:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The publications are notable and have a Wikipedia page to establish this. – Editør (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that notability and reliability are different things; a source can be notable but not reliable, or reliable but not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary was also meant to refer the reader to these Wikipedia pages that don't indicate any problems with reliability of the referenced publications.
@Nikkimaria, I think you are just explaining terms that could have been confused here. Or did you also mean to imply that you believe there is an issue with the reliability of these two sources? – Editør (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the specifics of the two sources, just noting that whether a Wikipedia page exists about them doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, noted.
@Ali Beary, have all issues now been resolved? – Editør (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose all the issues are solved. The article may stay as a FA. Thank you for your work on fixing this! If something happens and the article is nominated for FAR once more, would you like to be pinged to fix it? Ali Beary (talk!) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You may ping me, although I am not really a frequent contributor of this article. – Editør (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angkor Wat

edit
Notified: Henry Flower, Hinduism-related topics notice board, WikiProject Buddhism, WikiProject Archaeology, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Cambodia, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, 2023-01-28, 2025-02-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Restoration and challenges" section needs to be updated, and there are some uncited statements in the article. No response and few edits to notice posted on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts

edit
Notified: WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Square Enix, Favre1fan93, SubZeroSilver, Guyinblack25

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The media section wasn't written to a prose style, but as a list of each of its games, + the usage of a lot of unreliable/low quality/primary sources (Square Enix and random sources citing the devs' info) instead of secondary sources that exist. The media section was also written in lists instead of prose style. Additionally, the story section was incomplete and has an active tag template that is getting too long. There are plenty of unsourced statements, such as at the Gameplay section. The reception section was mostly written about KH being included in the rankings/listicles, which is trivia and irrelevant to readers. It should be rewritten entirely. What makes NAG and GamingDead reliable? There is also usage of low quality and out of place sources such as Twitter/X. Overall, the article obviously is in bad shape. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless Pizza!, I believe this is your sixth open FAR (after Tasha Yar, Homer Simpson, Hydrogen, Edgar Allan Poe, and Goblin shark); do you have permission from the coords? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't. I thought the requirements for us to do FAR is to open them once for week only. I apologize about that. Pinging @FAR coordinators: 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for this to proceed, but mind the limit in future plz. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the main contributors to the article when it passed its FAC in 2007. The assessment above looks pretty accurate; although I'm not sure if this needs to be closed or temporarily on hold for procedural reasons. Pending what the FAR coordinators say, this article should be reviewed and fixed at some point. I'm not sure how much I can help with clean up (looks like it'll be a big task), but I'll see what I can do. Any and all help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Redshift

edit
Notified: ජපස, Praemonitus, Marisauna, Iantresman, Art LaPella, Vsmith, AP Astronomy, WP Physics, WP Color, WP Measurement, original notice in January 2023

Since the original notice in 2023, there have been periodic comments on the article's talk page regarding sourcing and other issues, including one from January raising possible OR concerns. There are 9 CN tags in the article. This is one of the last 48 remaining pre-2007s to be at the WP:URFA/2020 listing. Hog Farm talk 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked over the History section using secondary sources and removed my OR concern. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided citations for all the remaining CN tags. jps (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and removed "broken anchors" template. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a note to the talk page, encouraging a review of Tong's textbook "Cosmology" which points out that even Hubble and Silpher, credited with discovering that redshift correlated with distance, did not understand that this implied an expanding universe. Apparently, they called it the "de Sitter effect" for a while; it took a while to figure out that galaxies are receding because the universe is expanding (and they were not the ones to figure this out). Science is non-linear. The obvious, canonically-accepted answer today is usually confused and muddled when first stated. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this interesting aside is probably best left explained at the expansion of the universe article. Redshift is an empirical phenomenon, and the interpretation that it is due to metric expansion deserves some economy on a page dedicated to the observable shifts of light rather than the history of how such shifts were interpreted. jps (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Johnjbarton - Do you have any further thoughts on this? Hog Farm talk 21:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied on Talk:Redshift#Redshift_as_the_"de_Sitter_Effect" as in my opinion this suggestion is for a minor addition to Redshift which is not well connected to the topic based on the sources we have. It's more about Hubble's Law and in any case not a showstopper for FAR. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Hong Kong

edit
Notified: WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject China, Deryck Chan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there seems to be missing information throughout this article. The "Colour specifications" section says that it is the same colour as China's flag, but then doesn't specify what that is. It also doesn't specify what other colour(s) are used in the flag. The flag has also been used as a symbol in recent events concerning Hong Kong, but this has not been outlined in the article. There are some unreliable and lower-quality sources used as inline citations, which should be replaced by higher-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I added other colors and the protest use of the Black Bauhinia variant. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: There is still a citation needed tag, and missing information about more recent events. Are you interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What more recent events are you referring to. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are referring to the use of the last colonial flag of Hong Kong, particularly during and after the 2014 protests, as a symbol of Hong Kong independence or autonomy. I moved the details to Flag of Hong Kong (1871–1997) to keep this article concise.
I doubt this is the case, but if they are referring to the current flag of Hong Kong being used alongside the PRC flag by pro-Beijing demonstrators, well, that's not really a recent development (or rather a significant change since its introduction). Yue🌙 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see the previous question. Yes, I am referring to the flag's use in post-1997 protests. While it is not a significant change, its continued used by pro-Beijing protesters is worth mentioning and the intended symbolism. Is the flag also used by protesters for other causes? Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources distinguish that from the general waving of one's flag as a show of patriotism/nationalism? It seems reasonably run-of-the-mill symbolism. CMD (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Chinese-language sources, and can probably find English-language sources, that specifically note the use of the HKSAR flag by counter-protesters during the 2014, 2019, and 2020 anti-government protests. That's just a sentence or two missing at most though. Yue🌙 21:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar but not exactly what I was talking about: CNN article on the HKSAR flag being targetted by protesters as a symbol of the PRC / HKSAR governments. Yue🌙 21:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That report does not suggest there is anything particularly notable about the flag being a symbol of the PRC/HKSAR governments. The symbolism is already explained in the article: Chinese flag red, Chinese flag stars, one country two-systems. Perhaps something could be added about how the flag has not gained acceptance by those who disagree with this political situation, but that pro-government protesters use a government flag is to be expected. Flag defacement/variation might also be worth some words, but it is also not unusual. CMD (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your research. Considering the above, it looks like the flag's use in protests was not as widespread as I thought, so it seems fine as-is and more information can be added later. I'll take another look at the article when the citation needed tags are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Beato

edit
Notified: Pinkville, Hoary, GillesdeF WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Photography, WP Japan, WP China, WP Italy, WP Journalism, 2025-02-24

This article met the lower inline citation standards in 2005 when promoted, and improvements were made in a 2011 FAR. However, there is still some work to be done here in that respect as the featured article criteria now stand - mainly in the Burma section. I also wonder if there is more to be said about his legacy; Beato's work seems to have been fairly significant in its time. There were some discussions on the article's talk page regarding ongoing improvements in 2023 and 2024, but these seem to have stalled out. A lot of this uncited content was added in 2013, after the FAR - editors with more familiarity in this subject matter may be able to determine if this content is actually suitable for the article. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I notice is the lead is kinda short for a feature article, only ~137 which is lower than the usual 250 to 400 words for WP:FA articles which is also stated in MOS:LEADLENGTH. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic addition was made by GillesdeF, who I think hasn't been seen hereabouts since 2018. Material, as yet untapped, about the Burmese period is available. ¶ When a lead is kinda short, I'm kinda happy; indeed, I'm kinda irritated by requests to bulk up a lead. (To me, "Too short leaves the reader unsatisfied" sounds kinda dumb: the lead-reader is thereby invited to proceed to the body of the article.) A different matter, of course, if somebody points out that the lead omits mention of such-and-such but should include it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It gladdens my heart to drop in here after a long absence and see your "name". I couldn't agree more abut "ledes". Wikipedia has some peculiar conventions that don't have much to do with useful ways to present content. Oh, the lost cause against infoboxes... Pinkville (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkville and Hoary: - The Burma content has been sourced now - do either of y'all have any additional thoughts about this one? Hog Farm talk 02:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, there's nothing in particular that I'm now planning to do to the article, but certainly I'd consider requests to do this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Luminous Lint" still something that would be considered to be a high-quality RS in 2025? Hog Farm talk 02:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, Hog Farm (and if you'd only pinged me, I'd have noticed it sooner). No it wouldn't. Two LL items were listed in "References". One wasn't actually referred to. The other was only used as a convenient quotation from a book by a Dr Rennie. As the original of the latter is anyway available at archive.org, I've linked to that instead, and have removed all mention of Luminous-Lint. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary and Pinkville: - this is looking much better! Just a few other questions:
"that "Felice Antonio Beato" represented two brothers, Felice Beato and Antonio Beato, who sometimes worked together, sharing a signature. The confusion arising from the signatures continues to cause problems in identifying which of the two photographers was the creator of a given image." - is this in ref [6]? I just want to make sure that we've got this covered with a citation, given the significance of the claim here
"but it is now generally accepted that Beato travelled there alone." - this should have a direct citation, as it is stating the view of the published work to be incorrect
"The photographs were not taken in this order, as the photographs of dead Chinese had to be taken first—before the bodies were removed; only then was Beato free to take the other views of the exterior and interior of the forts" - should this be counterbalanced with the claim earlier in the article that Beato had the bodies dug up to photograph?
Like I said above, this is looking to be in pretty good shape. Hog Farm talk 01:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, regarding the issue of the Chinese dead. According to the sources, Beato requested the Chinese dead be left where they were (though there's obvious photo evidence that they were moved anyway). The disinterred bodies were earlier, in India, not China. Are you asking for more information to relate these two events? Pinkville (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second, the "Felicice Antonio Beato" surce is, indeed, (6) Zannier. But I confess the reference is weird because of the mention of Chantal Edel. I'm trying to remember (I don't have access to the book, at the moment), but I reckon Chantal Edel contributed an essay to the Zannier book - which is a small exhibition catalogue. If that's the case, it should have been referenced directly. Pinkville (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third, "but it is now generally accepted that Beato travelled there alone." This is difficult to source. At one time, it was claimed that the two brothers both went to India. In more recent scholarship, there's no mention of this claim - because there's no evidence that Antonio ever went to India as early as 1857. It'll take some work to see if there's anything to add, otherwise, it might be best to remove the whole sentence (i.e. the Gernsheim claim). Pinkville (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary had posted some responses to my comments at Talk:Felice Beato; where I just responded before seeing this here. I misread the article regarding the corpse-moving. I found a source that may help with the other two things. Hog Farm talk 03:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's one minor external linking quibble being discussed on talk, but I'm comfortable posting a close without FARC. Most of the content was already gone through in the 2011 FAR; the post-2011 editions have been trimmed/sourced, and some further improvements have been made. Hog Farm talk 02:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holkham Hall

edit
Notified: Giano; WT:ARCH; WT:UK; WT:WPENG; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Anglia; Talk-page notice 2023-01-25

Desertarun has listed a number of concerns on the talk page, but I think the most immediate problem is the dearth of citations, which was acceptable in 2005 but is not consistent with current expectations. I notice KJP1 offered a couple years ago to spruce things up, and that would certainly still be welcome—but the issues are numerous and have been noted for well over a decade, so I do think it's time for FAR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely understand why Desertarun flagged it initially, and why it's been listed now. Don't understand why I forgot about it - apologies - but 2023/4 was a busy period IRL. The main issue is indeed the "cite-lite" nature of the article as it stands. I think that can be addressed and, in doing so, I think the other issues can also be rectified. Let me have a go over the next few weeks and than people can see what they think. I'm afraid I will need a few weeks, as I have some off-Wiki commitments, and on Wiki am just finishing up another piece of business. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review

edit

A few immediate thoughts

  • Prose - the intention will be to retain Giano's prose/flow as far as possible;
  • Citation style - I hope it won't cause too much concern if I sfn the article. I find any other style very difficult to work with. As part of this, I will split the footnotes and the references. Having done this on a number of other articles, I'm confident it can be done without violence to the prose/flow;
  • Art collections of Holkham Hall - I agree with Johnbod that the Collections sections of that article (1-5 inclusive) should remain separate. However, Sections 6 and 7 are rather different in that they are very much focussed on the Design, the Influence, and the Interiors of the house. There is much of value, which appears to have been written by User talk:Architon, an editor who has not contributed since 2021. My immediate thought is that there is much that could be brought here - with attribution. There is also an immediate downside, in that it will make the current absence of citations issue worse rather than better, as there is not a single reference in any of it, setting aside the one footnote which in fact comprises the entire referencing for the whole Art collections article.

Let me know if any of this raises concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, take your time and use whatever citation style you like. On prose, some of the more colorful/opinionated turns of phrase may need to be reined in (I see SN54129 has already made a start on this), but that'll probably happen naturally as you see what's supported by the sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm not sure that retaining the original prose will necessarily make for a better article; pace the original author, but in many places it reads like a National Heritage guide. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, from the perspective of 2025. But I’m not aware of another editor who has written articles of higher quality about architecture on Wikipedia. That’s something I’ll try to respect. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
edit

Creating this for now. They'll all ultimately be used. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ackerman, James S. (1991). Palladio. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-141-93638-3. Archived from the original on 5 May 2023. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
  • Our great master Kent
Notes
edit
  • Need to sort the "who designed" parts which are currently split over two sections. Must use this KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed building status - need to make more of that bureaucratic detail.
  • History - needs a short History section at the end, incorporating Holkham today.
  • Art - needs a short summary, with a {main} link to Art collections.
  • The Archive - see Talk above. It is an important archive, maybe a short mention?
Update
edit

Fortuna imperatrix mundi / Extraordinary Writ / User talk:Desertarun / Johnbod

A quick update and a few questions:
  • Article size - We're now at 55kb as against the 28Kb when it started, but much of that is cites. On which point;
  • Cites - we're now at 100, more if you count a/b etc. as double. That compares with 28 at the start of the FAR. I don't think there are any uncited para.s left;
  • Sources - The article is now supported by a much wider range of sources, principally a load more book sources;
  • History - I've tried to balance the understandable desire for something, with the equally understandable concern not to fill a article on the house with loads of biographical stuff. All the owners do have their own articles.
  • Art collection / library and archive - as discussed on Talk, all of these are important and could be expanded. But they are now covered;
  • Image placement / captions - I've tried to address the "ugly arrangement" of images. I've not yet looked at the captions, but will;
  • Blockquote - I've tried to give a bit of context to this. More? Lees-Milne and John Goodall both discuss it.
  • Tidying - There's quite a lot to be done here, particularly with the book sources where many are missing full details. I'll obviously do these.

I'd be very grateful if you were able to have a look, bearing a few issues specifically in mind:

  • Length - is it long enough? I'm particularly thinking about the Interior section. I could go for a room-by-room approach, as does Art collections of Holkham Hall, and bring some of that over, with attribution. But it has NO cites!
  • Design - I'm not happy with the Design section, and the big architectural question that has rumbled since the house was built - Who designed Holkham? First, it's actually spread over two sections, Architects and patron, and Design. Second, and this reflects the date of the article's creation, it is probably a little over-assertive as to Kent's dominance, "Kent was largely responsible for the external appearance of Holkham". Much research has taken place since 2005. It's messy and inconclusive, but I think a fair summary would be to say that research has "bigged up" the contributions of Brettingham, and Coke himself, while downplaying the contribution of Burlington. Kent's still the main man, but far from the only man. I think we need a bit more nuance, but would be grateful for any thoughts.
  • Are there any other immediately noticeable gaps/issues?
  • Have I addressed the main FAR concerns?
  • Should I mention the bowler hat - which was originally designed for Holkham's gamekeepers? Trivial, but quite interesting, footnote?

I'd very much appreciate any input. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I’ve begun a recast of the Patron and Design sections which I hope will address one of the above issues. KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the update
edit

As at 6 8 March, we are:

  • at 70kb as against 28kb pre-review;
  • at 135 cites, with 15 footnotes, as against 28 cites and 2 notes at the start of the FAR;
  • with a much expanded range of book sources. I've also tidied/expanded the sources with isbns/urls etc.;
  • with expanded sections on the origins of, and attributions to, the design of the hall;
  • with a short history section, and coverage of the art collection etc.
  • with a revised lead;
  • I've also attempted to address the other concerns raised, i.e. image placement, confusing block quote etc.

I have not fully understood the concern over the image captions (is it the need for alt text?). If this could be clarified, I'd be pleased to address it.

I think that basically leaves the question of whether to further expand the article with some text on individual rooms from Section 7.2 of this, Art collections of Holkham Hall. I can certainly do this but it would take some more time, as it is completely without citations. I would very much appreciate views as to whether this would be (a) an improvement and (b) a necessary step to avoid FARC. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have now created sourced sub-sections on the major rooms. These could certainly be expanded further, but I think they may suffice for the purposes of the FAR? KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the update to the update
edit

As at 10 March, we are:

  • at 77,465 kb;
  • at 150 cites, with 16 footnotes;
  • the book/journal sources are further expanded;
  • separate sections on the main rooms.

I could go on adding things, but would very much appreciate some feedback as to whether the changes made to date meet the FAR concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not! Second removed.
  • "The Holkham library collection remains "one of the finest private libraries in England"" - since this is an opinion, can we get in-text attribution of the quote?
Now attributed to the Folger.
  • Are the two Canalettos pictured part of the house's collection?
They are - the earl is actually fortunate enough to own three. Now cited.
He is indeed. Well spotted, I missed that. Now linked.

There's some thoughts by me - I really think this is pretty much ready to be kept. Hog Farm talk 20:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm - thanks very much indeed for taking a look. I hope I've addressed the above satisfactorily. KJP1 (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close w/o FARC here. Hog Farm talk 14:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria - I'm a bit stuck here. I've attempted to address the concerns raised by User:Extraordinary Writ and User talk:Desertarun, but haven't been able to get any feedback from them on whether I've done so successfully. I'm now not sure what the next steps should be. KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies...will take a look shortly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EW
edit

Very sorry for the delay. A few thoughts on a first read:

  • What do you think about the lead picture (added in 2019)? I'd say it captures too much of the sky and not enough of the hall: I certainly can't make out all the details listed in the caption, which was written for this image. Maybe we could crop it, or else find something better in commons:Category:Holkham Hall.
Yes, it is a big sky! Norfolk is famed for them. I've gone through Commons and I can't see a better image of the south front, the most important façade. I think the features described can be picked out, but you may need to expand the image to do so. Cropping may well work, but it's not a thing I'm very experienced in.
  • that in the home of Palladianism the idea of the mansion at Holkham was conceived — a bit too indirect/unclear, especially since we haven't drawn the Palladianism–Italy connection yet.
See below.
  • The originator of Palladianism paragraph: good call on adding this, but maybe there's a way to transition into it a little more smoothly? It's a bit abrupt to just jump back to the 16th century without explanation.
This, and the one above, are good points. It occurred to me that flipping the first two para.s may help. I've done this, with a bit of tweaking. See what you think?
  • Coke engaged a number of architects... – there's too much going on in this sentence, which makes it hard to remember what "the first of this" is referring to.
Have sought to break this up into more digestible pieces.
  • more reminiscent of a prison than a grand house – is there a source for this?
Not that I'm aware of. I've changed it to "institution" and combined it with the next sentence, the Nicolson comment on the riding school, which I think explains it better.
  • In his chapter, 'Living with the past: Victorian alterations to the country house', in the volume The Future of the Past: Attitudes to conservation 1174-1974 – perhaps just note the topic rather than listing all this in-text.
Done.
  • reaches a height and grandeur seldom seen in any other house in England – I would just lead off with the Nicolson quote (or another one of your choice) rather than trying to say it in wikivoice.
Done.
  • The cost of the construction of Holkham is thought to have been in the region of £90,000 – I would mention this back when you talk about construction...then you can just refer at the end to the "vast sum".
Done.
  • The article mentions Hiskey's "important" and "authoritative" 2016 book, but I don't think you cite it anywhere. Was that a deliberate choice, or did you just not have access to it? If the latter, I can probably borrow a copy and send you a few chapters...let me know.
I don't have access to the 2016 Hiskey, and you're right that it would be good to include a bit. If you were able to access it, that would be extremely helpful.
  • Probably worth mentioning what was on the site before Holkham (e.g., Hill Hall).
Done.

Looking good. I'll give it a more thorough going-over later, but this should at least get you started. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful and much appreciated. Let me know if any of the amendments still don't meet the need. KJP1 (talk) 05:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ - Hi, it would be good to get your further thoughts on this. KJP1 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ - a few thoughts on the process so far:
  • On 23 February you listed the article for FAR, and pinged me in doing so;
  • I responded the same day and said I would seek to address the concerns;
  • Between 23 February and 10 March, I worked to take the article from 28,000 bytes, 28 cites and 2 footnotes, to 80,816 bytes, 154 cites and 19 footnotes;
  • I sought feedback on three occasions during this work but didn't get any;
  • After prompting from Nikkimaria and myself, you replied on 4 April with a few helpful comments, although I found your remark, "this should at least get you started" rather odd, given the expansion I had already undertaken;
  • I addressed your comments the following day and again asked for feedback;
  • A week on, we have returned to radio silence and I am no clearer as to (a) have your original concerns regarding the "dearth of citations" been addressed; (b) have the further issues you raised on 4 April been addressed; (c) do you have any other issues?
Speaking frankly, the lack of engagement since this article was first listed for FAR has been discouraging. I have put in quite a lot of effort but have received little feedback as to whether this effort has been worthwhile. Having done a few FARs, I know it can be a challenging and time-consuming process. This is a good example of how it can be both gruelling, and productive. But to function effectively, it really does need active participation from both the responder and the nominator. KJP1 (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're of course quite right, and I owe you another apology, both for being slow and being uncommunicative. You've done a terrific job reworking the article and addressing all my concerns, and I'm not sure why I didn't say that before...I'll definitely be a keep as soon as I go through it again. I try to review FARs with the level of thoroughness I would give an FAC, which is why I sometimes get so far behind: it's the sort of thing I can only do if I just block off an evening for it. I want to get a hold of the Hiskey book (which I sent for last weekend and will probably have by Tuesday) before I do that, but you have my word that I'll wrap things up within the week. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is generous, and appreciated. And I’m fine to wait, now that we have a time-frame. You are right that it would be inappropriate to finalise without seeing what Hiskey may be able to add, though it is worth bearing in mind that her profession is that of archivist, not architectural historian, and I suspect there may be a greater focus on the history/archives than on the house itself. But we need to wait and see. I look forward to picking this up when you have the book. We can also discuss how best we might approach “filleting” it. Warm regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do now have the Hiskey book, so if you shoot me an email, I can send you some of it. There's a list of chapters here (under "show more information"), so you're welcome to pick out three or four that interest you (or a smaller chunk to start with). Most of the material seems to be (unsurprisingly for an archivist's 576-page book) very granular, so it may not be terribly helpful, which is of course completely fine...don't feel like you have to cite it on my behalf. It might be more useful if there's an aspect or period that other sources don't really touch on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mail sent. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe

edit
Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Poetry, Midnightdreary, Jm34harvey, Susmuffin, Reify-tech

I am nominating this featured article for review because... The article has a lot of "citation needed" tags, is outdated, and isn't comprehensive enough to be FA. Aside from unsourced statements, the Commemorations and namesake section might need some hand or possibly some paragraph needs to be rewritten. This article is very important to be looked at. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify in what way you feel the article is "outdated"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is simply not comprehensive enough. There are prpbably more scholars that can added to the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just randomly passing through... I think these kinds of critiques need to be much more specific. I'm sure there is recent Poe scholarship, but for a topic like this, we can't include everything, so people need a better sense of what you think is missing. Zagalejo (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not really an expert when it comes to this article. The main reason why I brought this article to FAR was because the article needs some hands. So, I believed other FAR reviewers can point that out. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to more specific commentary on what might be missing. So far as I know, the article here is comprehensive and up to date with scholarship. There may be more recent critiques related to his writing, but his biography hasn't changed much. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Center for Science and Education "English Language Teaching" journal article needs to go; the Canadian Center of Science and Education is on Beall's List. I don't see why we should be citing crimelibrary.com/truTV in a FA about Poe. The Burns School of Communication piece looks like some sort of undergrad/journalism school web piece; there is going to be much better sourcing available. This needs some general cleaning-up. Hog Farm Talk 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The poeboston.blogspot.com blog needs to go too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbler Ridge

edit
Notified: Maclean25, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Mining, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Organized Labour

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, the "Demographics" section is underdeveloped and there is information in the lead that editors cannot find in the article body (outlined on the article talk page). Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article Cos (X + Z) 22:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocampus

edit
Notified: Iztwoz, Boghog, WikiProject Animal anatomy, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience 2022-12-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has uncited passages, some of which have been marked with "citation needed" since December 2022. "Computational models" is underdeveloped and the source is not high-quality. The "Further reading" section seems extensive: I think the sources listed should be evaluated for inclusion as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two citation needed tags are pretty minor - the sentences themselves could be removed without real content loss. It's been a while since I looked at the page and noticed the uncited passages added fairly recently seemingly from a merge. Shall have another look as per your comments. Iztwoz (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been provided for the four citation needed tags. Also several of the further reading citations are primary and therefore not good candidates to move in-line. I have deleted these. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The computational models section was really about the Hippocampome.org portal. I have moved the single Hippocampome citation to the external links section which I think is a more appropriate place for this source. Boghog (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boghog: I added cn tags to the article. I also notice that there are several sources listed in "Further reading": should these be used as inline citations or removed from the article? Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The requested citations have been added. I don't have any strong opinion on the further reading section. Perhaps this section could be trimmed further by removing the older sources. Boghog (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, later work did confirm that the olfactory bulb does project into the ventral part of the lateral entorhinal cortex, and field CA1 in the ventral hippocampus sends axons to the main olfactory bulb,[47] the anterior olfactory nucleus, and to the primary olfactory cortex. There continues to be some interest in hippocampal olfactory responses, in particular, the role of the hippocampus in memory for odors, but few specialists today believe that olfaction is its primary function.[48][49]" - do we have some WP:MEDDATE issues here? "Later work" being a rat study published in 1990, "There continues to be some interest " to 1991 and 2001? Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A later theory (2020) proposed – without questioning its role in spatial cognition – that the hippocampus encodes new episodic memories by associating representations in the newborn granule cells of the dentate gyrus and arranging those representations sequentially in CA3 by relying on the phase precession generated in the entorhinal cortex" - Frontiers has been a controversial publisher - is it due weight to throw this in here only cited to the original Frontiers publication? Has this been followed by anything since? Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite skepticism from other investigators, O'Keefe and his co-workers, especially Lynn Nadel, continued to investigate this question, in a line of work that eventually led to their very influential 1978 book The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map." - we're citing this tothe O'Keefe and Nadel book itself; it's puffery to call this "very influential", at least without a strong independent source Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whether theta can be seen in primates is not yet clear" - MEDDATE again? "not yet clear" from 2003? Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been going through sections - there has been a lot of work published since its last review. I shall look at your noted points.Iztwoz (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor thing, but is "Hebb DO (1949). Organization of Behavior: a Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley. ISBN 0-471-36727-3." citing a reprint? A book from 1949 wouldn't have had an ISBN
  • "The most popular hypothesis" - most popular cited to 1993 source - there's been a lot of research into this area in the last 30 years from what I can tell - is this still the most optimal source for this claim?
  • "As of 2025, further trials of a memory in–memory out (MIMO) model that has been developed, are ongoing." - cited source is from 2018; need something to verify that this is still ongoing.

This is looking a lot better to me. Z1720 - do you have anything else to add here? Hog Farm talk 22:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Iztwoz to make sure they see my last few comments above. Hog Farm talk 17:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Hog Farm I think the points you raised have now been covered - thanks Iztwoz (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems fine to me, but I am not a science-focused editor. There are no uncited passages, more recent sources seem to have been incorporated into the article and further reading has been greatly reduced (although I wish there were no sources listed there, but I will not let that bother me). Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think this can be closed w/o FARC. Hog Farm talk 20:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson

edit
Notified: WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Television, 750h+, Xeroctic

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article is now outdated in some parts (the lead should be updated) + the design (not entirely), reception, and cultural influence sections need to be overhauled and expanded to meet the modern FA criteria. It also has no appearances section, the notes section is irrelevant, and more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this. Like Bart Simpson, an appearances section is irrelevant, as he only appears in one show, The Simpsons. 750h+ 11:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are citation errors - Sito 2006; Terrace 2014; and Jackson & Moshin 2013 are used as sfn short citations with no corresponding long citations
    • fixed
  • The Character development section seems to trail off around 2007 - I know the TV show's quality has generally gone downhill in recent years, but is there no such material like that for the last 15 years?
    • there's not many dates mentioned here; there's sources from much more recent than 2007.
  • "While Homer's thoughtless antics often frustrate his family, he consistently proves himself to be a loving husband" - "consistently proves" yet cited to what appears to only be a single episode?
    • fixed
  • "The show occasionally hints that Homer forgets he has a third child, Maggie. " - yet again only appears to be sourced to a single episode (and one in which Homer apparently rearranged his life for Maggie)
    • while copyediting before i actually tried to find a source for this but i couldn't find that any reliable ones so i'll probably just remove the forgetting Maggie part. Though I think the part for Homer rearranging his life for Maggie is acceptable since it does say the event in the text.
  • "Homer frequently engages in debates with his own mind, expressed through internal voiceovers. His mind often provides questionable advice that occasionally steers him in the right direction but more often results in catastrophic failures. In some instances, his mind even becomes so exasperated with Homer that it "walks out" on him, symbolized through sound effects. These internal dialogues were initially introduced as time-fillers and were relatively simple for the animators to create" is sourced to "Vitti, Jon (writer); Lynch, Jeffrey (director) (February 4, 1993). "Brother from the Same Planet". The Simpsons. Season 4. Episode 14. Fox." which appears to just be a single episode and not some sort of season commentary?
    • will do this soon

I don't think this is ready to be kept yet. Hog Farm talk 00:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo pinging also just incase they may be interested at reviewing the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: ? 750h+ 09:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been very busy IRL the last week or so, but hopefully I'll have some time this weekend to take another look at this. Hog Farm talk 17:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We wanted Bart to do anything up to the point of him being tried in court as a dad. But Homer is a dad" - I thought this seemed odd; looked it up, and the source actually says "We wanted Bart to do anything up to the point of him being tried in court as an adult. But Homer is an adult". This is the result of non-productive editing in 2018
  • "However, under Mike Scully's tenure as executive producer (seasons nine through twelve, 1997–2001), his behavior shifted toward being a "boorish, self-aggrandizing oaf"." - minor source text integrity issue - we can't support that Scully's tenure ended in 2001 with a 2000 source. Worse, the source doesn't mention Scully at all, and states that this transition occurred "Somewhere along the way — and try as I might, I’ve been unable to nail down exactly when it happened "
  • "espite his strained relationship with his father, Abraham "Grampa" Simpson—whom Homer quickly placed in a nursing home and whom the Simpson family often tries to avoid—Homer has occasionally shown genuine love and affection for him." - this would be best sourced to something more secondary than two indiviual episodes
  • "n 1982, Robert Thompson, director of Syracuse University's Center for the Study of Popular Television, predicts that "three centuries from now, English professors are going to be regarding Homer Simpson as one of the greatest creations in human storytelling"." - this makes no sense, as Homer was not introduced until '87. A look through the source suggests that the 1982 reference is actually Thompson stating that Letterman emerging in '82 paved the way for the Simpsons
    • I have no idea how that happened

In addition, I've corrected a reference placement myself and removed an instance of duplicated content. The article needs to be gone over to check for source-text; I'm way to busy to do all that myself. Hog Farm talk 03:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: thanks for the edits, and i will go over this in a bit. 750h+ 06:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fixed all of @Hog Farm:'s concerns, if anyone would like to do a spotcheck feel free 750h+ 13:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@750h+: - My concern here is that we're going to get a WP:FIXLOOP - source text integrity issues get pointed out, the specific ones noted get resolved, another review brings up more issues, ad nauseum. I'd like to get an assurance that some systematic check of the references has been made before I try to read-through this again. Hog Farm talk 19:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the late response) Give me some time to fix the sources, and i'll get back to this in a bit. 750h+ 09:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: what do you think? i've made sure that episodes are either cited next to other sources or that the reader knows that the source is cited by an episode. 750h+ 07:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look soon. Hog Farm talk 20:21, 13 April 2025 (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.

Transformers (film)

edit
Notified: Alientraveller, Healthykid (original nominator), Waxworker, Bignole, JediLofty, WP Film, WP Science Fiction, WP Toys, WP Transformers, WP USA, WP Animation, noticed in June 2022

Review section

edit

As an IP editor pointed out in mid-2022, this 2008 promotion is heavily reliant on low-quality sources, including various Transformers fansites such as Seibertron, Tformers, or Ben's World of Transformers. The original FAC nominator has not edited since 2008, and as of this writing, has apparently never edited this article. I do not believe that this article meets the featured article criteria, due to the reliance on sources that are not high-quality RS. Hog Farm talk 01:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surrender of Japan

edit
Notified: Raul654, Wwoods, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject History, [[Notified 2023-06-30|]]

Review section

edit

As noted in June 2023 by Wretchskull, this 2009 FA has significant problems relating to the FA criteria. These include:

  • Unreferenced statements and paragraphs
  • Excessively numerous lengthy quotations
  • Use of webpages for citations instead of high-quality reliable sources
  • Over-reliance on two academic sources (Frank 1999 and Hasegawa 2005) when there is a huge amount of scholarly literature available
  • Undue weighting of certain topics: for example, 2.6% of the article's prose is dedicated to summarising this airspacemag.com article.

I hope this level-5 vital article can be brought to current FA standards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, I will try to work ont this one. I hope to get a full rewrite done within 1 to 1.5 months. Matarisvan (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The first para of the lead is heavy going, and should be considerably simplified
  • The lead is overly focused on the atomic bombing and doesn't really reflect the modern literature on the debate over the reasons Japan surrendered when it did
  • The para starting with "As a final attempt to stop the Allied advances" is simply wrong and is cited to an unsuitable and dated source. The modern literature on this topic notes that Japan was planning a defence in depth in Kyushu and was preparing to defend other areas
  • Iris Chang's book on the Rape of Nanking is a controversial work to cite, and it's not clear why it was used here.
  • The statement that " For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost a war in its history" seems highly unlikely (it lumps the entire population togther) and ignores Japanese defeats in Korea and at the hands of the European powers in small conflicts in the 19th century
  • On that topic, the article doesn't really address the war weariness of the Japanese people and military. While this had very little bearing on the government's decision to surrender, it meant that the great majority of Japanese immediately accepted the end of the war.
  • The article largely ignores the impact of the firebombing campaign that destroyed most of Japan's main cities before the atomic bombings.
  • The "Proposed invasion" section is much too simple and is misstitled given that the Allies were very serious about invading had the war continued. This needs to cover the high casualties which were expected, as this influenced the Allied governments' decision making
  • The article has too many block quotes and some are too long
  • The article ends rather abruptly and doesn't attempt to discuss the debates over this issue and how they've evolved.

In summary, I think that the article's content is a long way from modern FA standards. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, weighting, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger

edit
Notified: Zeality, Mazewaxie, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Square Enix

Review section

edit

Given that it has been two weeks since I posted my concerns about this article and have received no response, it's time to start a formal FAR. Here is every criterion that I'm concerned about this article's compliance with.

  • Criterion 1a: The writing of the reception section is not very engaging, especially given how bloated the second paragraph and how aimless the third paragraph is. I go more into detail in my talk page notes.
  • Criterion 1b: The legacy section contains little information on the game's overall retrospective reception and reputation, with any retrospective review that could help being buried in the reception section.
  • Criterion 1c: I'm skeptical of the reliability of N-Sider, Setlist.fm, Squarebrain, The Gaming Vault, Game Watch, Android Police, Chgeeks, Game Tyrant, Gossip Gamers, Demiforce, Goo ゲーム, and Gameky. Some references appear to be misattributed to Chrono Compendium and Schmpulations. Both websites are self-published and are focused on republishing other sources that should be cited instead. Also, there are passages in the gameplay section that don't have citations.
  • Criterion 2: The paragraphs in the plot, development, and reception section are too long, violating MOS:LAYOUT's provisions regarding paragraphs. In fact, the plot section itself is too long, being over 500 words past the recommended limit according to WP:VG/PLOT. I mentioned in my notes that the presence of single-paragraph sections in the release section are discouraged by MOS:LAYOUT; I was wrong. It actually only discourages single-paragraph sections when they are very short, meaning the only section that might be suspect is the one on the mobile port.
  • Criterion 2a: The lead section contains no information about the gameplay and little about the development beyond credits, both of which should be key elements of the subject.
  • Criterion 2c: The citations are not consistently formatted. For example, sometimes the work is italicized, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the work is linked, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the title isn't included, sometimes the work isn't included. That's the level of inconsistency we are dealing with here.

I find these issues to be far too extensive to do myself in a day, and I worry there might be issues I am missing. As such, I feel a formal review is necessary. Any additional concerns you may have are welcome. Lazman321 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging this FAR. Not sure if I can commit to working on this soon but keep me in mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no discussion here a week in, I might as well start working on the article, starting with the abysmal reception section, which I just realized doesn't even cover the reception of the Nintendo DS release. Feel free to comment here in the meantime. You can see my work here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to place my work on hold as IRL obligations have come up I cannot ignore. Feel free to work on this article while I'm gone. Lazman321 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lazman321, any chance you'll continue work on this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. I was considering potentially helping more by adding a sub-section to the reception section about the DS port's reception, but even if I were to do that, this article is still far from FA-status. I would not be able to fix all these issues myself within a reasonable time, and very few people seem interested in helping. As such, I'm willing to move on to the FARC stage. Lazman321 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm talk 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen

edit
Notified: Clayoquot, Smokefoot, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Elements, WikiProject Climate change, talk page notification 2023-11-01

Review section

edit

I stumbled upon this after doing some research for my niece's homework. However, I believe the article is not in good shape after all. The article was last reviewed in 2008 and there is considerable uncited text. The "Phases" section is only a list, including Niche and evolving sections. There is also overquoting, the citations at lead asap should be removed or moved to the body of the article, and other complaints from several users at the talk page that are left unaddressed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per house style: the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
I see only one long quote, the passage from Robert Boyle in § Discovery and use. Whether that is excessive is a matter of taste. I agree that § Phases should be more than a bare list; I took a stab at starting that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quote as undue. The material surrounding it had good references but they did not say what the article said. I repurposed them. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the FAR should not pass as long as the infobox content does not match the article content. Please see Talk:Hydrogen#Discovery_in_article_vs_template. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the energy carrier section should be severely pruned and the details moved to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1, why should it be severely pruned? When I do a Google or Google News or Google Scholar search for "Hydrogen" nearly everything in the first few pages is either a general overview, focused on producing H2, or focused on using H2 for energy. There is a lot of interest in this aspect of the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot No objection to production or use as energy, just as energy carrier as niche I think. But it seems your question is moot as someone else has already removed that subheading Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created and revised a section on chemistry. Some needs:


  • "Hydrogen is highly soluble in many rare earth and transition metals[40]". I'm not sure that solubility is the correct term or maybe we should expain that H2 is split (I think) and these metals make hydrides.
  • safety section is sorta contrived. If the stuff is liquified, one can get burns. Anything that cold will burn the crap out of you! Also the fire thing is a little redundant.
  • compressibility is an issue but is not mentioned. It is very unfortunate that compressing H2 costs a lot of energy.
  • diffusivity of H2 gas is another big deal. If I were a better man, I would understand the diffusion constants. But H2 gas moves quickly at RT, another reason that it is very difficult to have an H2 fire (see Graf Zeppling story).

Some other really big changes

  • Storage is emphasized
  • BioH2 is largely combined
  • "Energy carrier" section was redone and is now "Energy source". The carrier concept is now in storage.

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Energy carrier" versus "energy source" seems a bit pedantic. Something can be the source of energy in a particular application without being the way in which human society originally obtains energy. Among the million-plus GScholar hits for "hydrogen" and "energy source" are, no doubt, plenty that call hydrogen an energy source. Surely the important thing is to explain what goes into making hydrogen industrially, rather than to get hung up on the terminology. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I changed "energy carrier" to "fuel" which is clearer. Further explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen#Carrier_business Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few things and found a few more things that I won't have the energy to fix in the near future. Will list the issues below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're quite there yet.

  • " neutral hydrogen atoms only formed about 370,000 years later during the recombination epoch as the universe expanded and plasma had cooled enough for electrons to remain bound to protons" is what the reader is informed during the lead but then later there's "Nearly all deuterium in the universe is thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang, and has endured since then." And while I'm not very great with chemistry at all (my rural high school chemistry class involved more of lighting things on fire in the lab than it should have) isn't deuterium a netural atom? So was this produced at the Big Bang or 370,000 years later?
    • Deuterium atom does indeed mean the neutral deuterium atom. However, I think the intended meaning here was that deuterium nuclei is thought to have been produced at the time of the Big Bang and neutral hydrogen atoms only formed about 370,000 years later. Keres🌕Luna edits! 14:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has molecular hydrogen bolded as a synonym of hydrogen here, so I guess we're distinguishing this article from atomic hydrogen somehow? Our article at atomic hydrogen attributes the 75% figure to atomic hydrogen, not dihydrogen/hydrogen gas. Is that accurate?
    • The lede is indeed quite confusing. The current lede interchangeably talks about molecular hydrogen (H2) and hydrogen element itself (H). Here is the breakdown:
Hydrogen is a chemical element; it has symbol H and atomic number 1. It is the lightest element (atomic hydrogen)
at standard conditions, is a gas of diatomic molecules with the formula H2, sometimes called dihydrogen, hydrogen gas, molecular hydrogen, or simply hydrogen. It is colorless, odorless, non-toxic, and highly combustible. (molecular hydrogen)
Constituting about 75% of all normal matter, hydrogen is the most abundant chemical element in the universe. (atomic hydrogen)
I attempted to clarify the lede. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the lead seems to be focused on hydrogen as H2 gas, rather than the H1 atom, but the article body covers both of these things throughout? I think the lead needs refactoring
    • When the article focuses on the H1 atom, it is mostly talking about the nucleus, while when it talks about the H2 gas (the most common form in which it exists), it talks about its properties. Both the nucleus and the properties of an element are discussed in the lede. Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hydrogen gas was first produced artificially in the early 16th century by the reaction of acids with metals" - but the human history in the article body starts with Boyle in the late 17th century?
    • This is probably due to a disputed observation of hydrogen by Paracelsus.[1] Fixed.
  1. ^ John T. Hancock; Tyler W. LeBaron (2023). "The Early History of Hydrogen and Other Gases in Respiration and Biological Systems: Revisiting Beddoes, Cavallo, and Davy". Oxygen. 3 (1): 102–119. doi:10.3390/oxygen3010008.

Keres🌕Luna edits! 15:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This lead really needs work. Hog Farm talk 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The intro section should mimic the TOC of the article. The TOC of the article should call out which parts are atomic and which are molecular. (IMO these are not the same topic and we should probably have split the article.) Johnjbarton (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is tempting, I am at a strong oppose of spliting the article. The article hydrogen should discuss all parts of the atom and its forms. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before this FAR can really start progressing to a point where featured status can be kept, there really needs to be a clear definition of the scope of this article, and the scope of the lead needs to be consistent and coherent with the scope of the article as a whole. Hog Farm talk 20:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the other Element articles like Oxygen and Nitrogen group the form at STP with the element. I rewrote the intro to match the current TOC. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we possibly try to remove all citations from the lead and just simply source it at the body of the article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What's the rationale? According to MOS:CITELEAD its not needed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are agreeing. Or I hope because I moved or removed all of the citations in the intro. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes the article look so much better. This is not a preference, but other high-quality FAs does this. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All cn tags have been taken care of. What are the remaining problems? Keres🌕Luna edits! 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hydrogen is commonly used in power stations as a coolant in generators due to a number of favorable properties that are a direct result of its light diatomic molecules. " - needs better sourcing for "commonly used"; the two sources in this paragraph are from 1946 and 1931
  • "This was justified by the high thermal conductivity and very low viscosity of hydrogen gas, thus lower drag than air." - possible OR? "This was justified" referring to a 1937 event, but using a 1931 source?
  • ""Methane and hydrogen formation from rocks – Energy sources for life". Retrieved 6 November 2011." - incomplete reference formatting
  • What makes airships.net a high-quality RS?
  • "Hydrogen is mainly produced by steam methane reforming (SMR), the reaction of water and methane" - three references, do we need the 1934 patent, which isn't going to contain usefulness about hydrogen production in the current era
  • " "Hydrogen industry must clean itself up before expanding into new…". Canary Media. 31 August 2021. Retrieved 5 April 2023." - is this a high-quality RS? Is this related to The Canary (website) somehow (a source that WP:RSP does not speak kindly of)

@Keresluna, Johnjbarton, and Boneless Pizza!: - this is looking much better, the above notwithstanding. Before entering a declaration of keeping for the FAR, I would like to see the above addressed and hopefully we can get a chemistry-focused editor to read through the article thoroughly and indicate they are satisfied with it. Hog Farm talk 20:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are done. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you got to it before I could! Nice work. Also, does anyone know why the infobox is so wide?
Here are some thoughts about the Application section:
  • I feel like we do need more mentions of some industrial processes/concepts involving hydrogen, such as the historical Bergius process, and syngas (Fischer–Tropsch process)
  • Ammonia production should be elaborated on.
  • Are the Semiconductor and Coolant sections significant enough to warrant their own separate sections?
some other thoughts:
Other than these the article looks pretty good. Keres🌕Luna edits! 05:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this person is a chemistry focused editor, but he is doing a great job of periodic table article! Tagging you @Double sharp just in case you may be interested :D. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahuatl

edit
Notified: WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Mexico, talk page notification 2024-08-04

Review section

edit

User:Z1720 originally noticed this article for WP:URFA/2020 and brought up a number of concerns at the talk page, in August of last year, and many are still unresolved. I'll list them:

  • lead - WP:LEADLENGTH no longer recommends leads be 4 paragraphs or less, but at ~500 words the lead could still use some trimming.
  • uncited text - the "numerals" section is no longer uncited. There are a few paragraphs in the history section, at the end of the "Pre-Columbian" section and near the end of "Colonial", where I'm not sure everything is supported by the citations given. Additionally, there are some uncited glosses in the "Morphology and syntax" section - I haven't checked, I'm presuming they come from the sources cited in the prose near them. However, there is a footnote saying that, unless otherwise noted, the glosses come from one section of Suarez 1983, and not all these uncited glosses are really from Suarez 1983.
  • Comprehensive A number of sections needing updating or more work.
    • "Demography and distribution" and "20th and 21st centuries" - need to be updated to reflect more recent censuses, scholarship since the early 2000s, developments since the Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas and establishment of INALI, drug war violence affecting some Nahuatl-speaking communities.
    • "Writing" - doesn't provide a good summary of orthographies developed and used after the colonial period and the ideological/motivational issues and debates involved. Also, the big "Classical Nahuatl orthographies" table isn't really representative of things, only including IPA, APA, colonial and Launey's orthography - in contrast, Pharao Hansen's Nahuatl Nations provides a nice table showing how different consonants are represented in a variety of orthographies.
    • "Vocabulary" - right now it's just about Nahuatl words which have been borrowed into Spanish and English and place-names.
    • "Contact phenomena" - almost at a glance, doesn't seem to address or summarize the major facts & details
    • "Phonology" - maybe more on the saltillo - the consonant table right now has both ʔ and h, with h in parentheses and a little note on the saltillo, citing an article in French from 1980. Table should make it clearer they're allophones in different dialects, with maybe a bit more explanation.
    • "Morphology and syntax" - I'm not sure this would be good enough for an FA by today's standards - some content maybe could be added, maybe not all subsections really represent the literature in the best way, and while looking for glosses in Suarez 83 I found some grammar points which just weren't addressed here
  • consistent citations - Most shortrefs don't include parentheses around years, some do.

I can't really address well-written or possible style/MOS issues. Some of these issues should be fairly simple to resolve, but others would require more effort. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I restructured the "terminology" section, but I think that and the enclosing "Classification" section could use some looking over, and I'm not really sure how to improve it structure and writing-wise. Also, the way that section presents the term mēxihcacopa could be problematic - Hill & Hill 86 say it's a neologism.
And I've been working on the article as of late, I'll continue to do so, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get everything done within any given time period. Erinius (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23

edit
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation 14:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Review section

edit

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]
Currently I don't. I have limited access to these sources as I'm in the middle of an SLTE currently, but in a few days I'll check my shelves. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, @Matarisvan, a friend of mine has hard copies of these publications, I can borrow them if need be. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, @Steve7c8? That would be great, we would be able to finally close this FA review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan, I'm not quite sure how to Wikimail these sources. My friend has the physical books on hand which I borrowed. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would just need to photograph the pages we have cited here, and attach these photographs to an email which you can send through Wikipedia. Also, I'll be reviewing the YF-22 article at ACR soon, I haven't forgotten about it, just have too much work both on WP and IRL. Matarisvan (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you one of them, working to borrow the other book again to get pictures. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, received. Working on spot checks on refs cited to this source. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you the other one. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What establishes that Speciality Press located at Forest Lake, Minnesota has a reputation for fact checking, etc? The article is cites several works published by this company, which appears to lack and internet presence.
  • If File:FB-23 Rapid Theater Attack.png is a Northrop Grumman image as stated, it's been wrongly uploaded. The source PDF doesn't establish that it was released under a creative commons licence.
  • I suspect that none of the external links are needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with Specialty Press overall and I believe they went under just recently. However, the cited books in this article are written by people with direct connections to the YF-23, namely Alfred "Paul" Metz, YF-23 PAV-1 test pilot, and Air Force Materiel Command researchers and archiver, Tony Landis and reputed aviation author Dennis Jenkins.
  • If that is the case, I can upload a non-free thumbnail version under fair use.
Steve7c8 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, before you leave for your break, could we have your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, I would suggest removing the FB-23 image, since its copyright status is uncertain per Nikkimaria's comment above. I would reccomend adding an image of the FB-22 in its place, because it was competing with the FB-23, and because I reckon there would be more copyright free images of the FB-22 available. Matarisvan (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the FB-23 image with a fair use version (it will be automatically downscaled) to resolve this issue. Furthermore, I've removed most of the external links, except for the NASA gallery which I think is relevant. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot about the external links, and I agree that none of them seem necessary. I'm okay with removing them, but I'm not sure if I should without consensus from others in this review.
Steve7c8 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of areas where a copy edit is needed. Some examples below.
  • Translation of technical terminology per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia is not a scientific journal is needed in some places. Eg: "The YF-23 was statically unstable — having relaxed stability — and flown through fly-by-wire with the flight control surfaces controlled by a central management computer system." and the following five sentences. Or "the chiseled shape of the nose generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics".
  • There seems a lot of reliance on providing Wikilinks rather than in line explanations, falling foul of MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Implementation of this is subject to debate, but taking the article as a whole it seems to me to fall the wrong side of the line.
  • There seems to be an overuse of upper-case initial letters. Eg "Engineering and Manufacturing Development" or "Avionics Ground Prototype"
  • Some abbreviations are given but not reused. Eg "a domestic 5th/6th generation (F-3) fighter" or "Avionics Ground Prototype (AGP)".
  • Or "infrared homing (IR) missile detection" where the abbreviation is given at the third mention of infrared, which is not mentioned again.
  • The paragraph starting "The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) launched ..." should be deleted. Its only connection to the F-23 is "there was speculation that it could offer a modernized version of the F-23 to the JASDF". This seems to be "going into unnecessary detail" and/or not using summary style.

The article is not IMO to FAC standard. It is getting there and has clearly had a lot of TLC, but it needs a little more. Note that the examples given above are just that - examples. Resolving just these will not bring the article up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can address these in stride.
  • Would the phrase "flown through fly-by-wire which provides artificial stability" help clarify that?
  • "the chiseled shape of the nose with its sharp edges generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics"
  • I'll do a pass through this article to try to address this, although I would appreciate it if others can help because as an engineer, some of the terminology that's intuitive for me may not be for most readers.
  • Those are formal names in DoD acquisition language and also ATF program language, so I'm not sure how they should be handled.
  • I'll do a pass through to eliminate unneeded acronyms.
  • In this instance, I agree that there is a bit of undue weight. The only reported fact is that Northrop Grumman had offered to partner with the Japanese industry for the F-3 program, but no information was given on what was proposed, and as far as I know, the F-23 derivative is the journalist's own speculation. So again, this may be undue weight and if others agree I can adjust the wording.
Steve7c8 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, do the above changes address all the issues you raised? Do you have any further comments? Matarisvan (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, it's been 26 days since the last comment on here. Could you ask Nick and Gog if they have any further comments? This FAR has been open for 9 months now. Matarisvan (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Moving to get additional perspectives. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did extensive prose, image and source reviews, and I think the article passed on those counts. Matarisvan (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The external links still obviously don't comply with WP:EL. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my amended reply above. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Missing page ranges for chapters, p/pp errors, gratuitous upper-case initials (Dem/Val, Statement of Operational Need, System Requirements Reviews, many more), inline indecipherability ("The chiseled shape of the nose with its sharp edges generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics", "It was an unconventional-looking aircraft, with diamond-shaped wings tapered symmetrically at 40° in both the leading edge back sweep and trailing edge forward sweep, a profile with substantial area-ruling to reduce aerodynamic drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, and all-moving V-tails, or "ruddervators" " etc). Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve7c8, please address these comments. Matarisvan (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    System Requirement Review (SRR), Statement of Operational Need (SON), Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val), etc. these are all formal nouns in DoD acquisition language. The capitalizations may seem "gratuitous" but that’s because the sources also capitalize them that way.
    I’ve adjusted the two sentences to make them less awkward and more understandable, and putting commas where appropriate. Ideally, if a lay person can read through it and highlight more of the prose that’s hard to understand, I’ll work to fix it. As an engineer who works in this industry, I might not be able to catch all the prose that may be difficult to understand for a lay person. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild, any responses from your end to this reply? Matarisvan (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked (only) the first two points I listed above. Neither have been addressed. I see little point it checking further as we are well into WP:FIXLOOP territory. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, if you could add the page numbers for Williams 2002, Winchester 2005, Sweetman 1991b and the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, then I think Gog's first two issues will be fully resolved. Matarisvan (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Williams 2002 and Winchester 2005 already have page numbers. I've added them to Sweetman 1991b and the QDR. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, what I meant was you should add page numbers for Williams 2002 and Winchester 2005 in the biblio, not in the citations. Those are the only two chapters missing page ranges per Gog's comments. After that, we can start copy editing the article to reduce its technical complexity and make it more clear for the general reader. Matarisvan (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, now we just need citations for notes 1-4 and 7-8. I'm starting the copy editing and hope to be done soon. Matarisvan (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=1286199096"