Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles

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

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

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

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

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

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

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

Featured article reviews Edit

Kreutz sungrazer Edit

Notified: Worldtraveller, Ruslik0, Jqmhelios, WP Astronomy, noticed in 2021

As noticed by SandyGeorgia in 2021, this featured article last formally reviewed in 2008. There are prose issues (perhaps best exemplified by the admonition to "see below"), as well as dated text such as sourcing a list of discovery statistics to a source last updated in 2008, "The continuing discovery of large numbers of the smaller members of the family by SOHO will undoubtedly lead to a greater understanding of how comets break up to form families" from a source from 16 years ago, and similar. I don't think this will be a hard save, but this does need work. There are also more recent sources that should likely be consulted, such as [1], [2], and others. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC while some edits have been placed in the article, there is still more work to be done, particularly in sourcing the "Discovery and historical observations" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask Edit

Notified: Gary King, Pagrashtak, WP Video games, 2022-12-11

Featured article that was first promoted back in December 2005 (current status is from 2008). This nearly two decade old featured article lacks citations in several areas, has a cleanup banner from as far back as November 2021 that addresses a lack of citations, some sources noted on the talk page are missing, and the article itself is largely abandoned. I also believe that it might violate the MOS:VG when it comes to the organization of the Reception section, and some images may not be necessary. No large efforts to improve this articles issues have occurred since they were pointed out, and all edits recently have been relatively small. I might not be too familiar with the featured article criteria, but I'm very certain that this article needs improvement and currently does not meet it. NegativeMP1 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - I don't see any of the people you said you notified were actually notified. GamerPro64 14:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought that the people would be notified automatically? Whatever, mistake on my part, fixing that when I can NegativeMP1 15:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm interested in working on this when I can. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Had a busy week last week, still working on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marking as on my list to check over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article definitely needs a lot of TLC...
  • Gameplay section is pretty haphazard, and does a bad job explaining the gameplay to someone who hasn't already played Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure the gameplay makes sense to split into subsections about the masks and time cycle, but that might be just a cosmetic rather than important organizational quibble.
  • The synopsis is much better than it was thanks to edits, but it still repeats itself a lot (the plight of the regions is mentioned in setting and again in the plot) and I think is missing a few details to make sense of it (why does Tatl have no other choice than to help Link?)
  • The Development section has some IMO improper use of sources to synthesize conjectures (like Ura Zelda becoming Master Quest) and generally feels pretty slight for such a recognized and important game.
  • Reception definitely needs beefing up and a rewrite. Likewise the Legacy needs a cleanup. Sourcing throughout is not up to modern standards (Screenrant refs, unreferenced statements, and the like.) Much closer to a B-class article than FA these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minneapolis Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [3] which doesn't seem to support this at all
Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
  • "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chrono Cross Edit

Notified: Frietjes, Sergecross73, PresN, Zeality, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Square Enix, diff for talk page notification (2022-07-05)

Issues about the article originally raised in talk page were reliability of sources and possibly excessive quotes. Since being listed in WP:FARGIVEN, edits have been made. However, I doubt they have addressed such concerns, but I'm unsure. Needs further review than just a talk page discussion IMO. George Ho (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of the two remaining concerns on that page, it looks like the Nsider factoid is gone regardless (likely removed at some point over the last two years), and the Square Ultimania/Missing Piece information appears admissible under the WikiProject video games review standards: "Interviews from any source are typically allowed as a "self-published source about self". As long as the interview's authenticity can be reasonably ascertained, we allow the developer's own words as a primary source when the claims are (1) not exceptional, and (2) about the team or individual making the claim. Greater claims require a secondary source with a reputation for editorial quality. Whenever possible, prefer the editorial distance of a reliable, secondary source over a primary source interview." Square Enix doesn't appear to be called out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. I don't think there are really any controversial claims being made in either publication; the only thing of that flavor I've ever encountered is Toriyama's old editor claiming that an entirely different version of Chrono Trigger was made and scrapped based on his judgment call, which was nonetheless published by Famitsu, so it's still standing. ZeaLitY [ Talk - Activity ] 15:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a quick spot check for the sources in the article and didn't see any red flags. All of the sources not covered by the RS checker appear to qualify under WP:PRIMARY. The Symphonic Fantasies source is liner notes to a CD, which are WP:AGF cited to support things that are obvious (conducted by Arnie Roth, who produced the concert series, and that CC is on the tracklist). The (remaining?) NSider source is an interview, also PRIMARY. The Square Enix sources are all interviews or citing the game itself. Are there any sources you can find in particular that are unreliable to you? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just brought this article to review only because I saw it listed in FARGIVEN, so I figured issues were presumably unresolved. I guess the sourcing issue is resolved now?
Meanwhile, I now have concerns about consistency of English translations of the music tracks between this article and Music of Chrono Cross. Also, I wonder whether any of three music samples are necessary. Maybe I could be wrong about concerning them. George Ho (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which translations are you concerned about? As far as the music samples go, I don't know that we need three of them but these seem to be well supported as far as these things go. All three are discussed in the prose and illustrate key issues in the music development. Of the three, I would probably lose Scars of Time first since it's only discussed in one sentence and we could theoretically move another one to the Music of Chrono Cross article if it comes to that. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... I should've said English titles of instrumental tracks, like ones seen in the Music (or Soundtrack) section and the "music of" article.
As suggested, I have just now PRODded the "Scars of Time" sample. And moving another sample, you mean "The Dream That Time Dreams" or "Unstolen Jewels"? George Ho (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also moved a sample of ending theme to another article per one of your suggestions. George Ho (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found out that "The Dream That Time Dreams" ("Chrono Cross" article) = "時のみる夢" = "Dreams of the Ages" ("Music of..." article). George Ho (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the CC soundtrack to say which one is correct. I don't know that a mistake in the translation of music track titles rises to the level of FAR though. Perhaps User:PresN could weigh in about the titles? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The official English translation is "Dreams of the Ages"; "The Dream That Time Dreams" is the unofficial translation. --PresN 19:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the unofficial English title commonly used by multiple reliable sources? Are there other commonly used English titles of the same piece besides the two? George Ho (talk) 06:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be "Dreams of the Ages". Done. --PresN 23:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the official English title is gonna be used, then the same should apply to other pieces, like one whose unofficial title is "Voyage~Another World". George Ho (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated the unofficial track names I saw. --PresN 02:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you or anyone else have any other objections with the article? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Generally there's a lot of overquoting that would be better handled by paraphrase for a FA-quality article, if this went through FAC today. czar 13:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No major edits were made to address over-quoting. Hopefully, the inconsistency with use of English titles of tracks is resolved. Seems that sourcing issue may have been resolved, but that's my guess. George Ho (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd like to see some of the less important quotes paraphrased, but I wouldn't stand in the way of closing this. The article looks to be FA quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Close without FARC. Article seems in fine shape to me. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geography of Ireland Edit

Notified: Filiocht (last edit 2013), Ww2censor, Moxy, Jacobfrid, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Europe, 2021-10-10 2022-10-14

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the need to update the information (like climate data and the "Oil, natural gas, renewables and minerals" section). Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerto delle donne Edit

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

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

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it passes on comprehensiveness, keeping in mind however that I only considered sources that show up on Google Scholar. There are some bits in the page source that need further thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The additions look great, thanks Jo-Jo! I recall working on this for a bit but stepping back due to time commitments. Hopefully I can look throughout it more next week... am thinking that the biggest issues right now are source References formatting and the rather poor lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aza24 are you going to be able to look at this, or should we be moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think so. Give me till the end of the weekend—if I don't get to it by then we can move it FARC. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at this today – Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked at it a bit today. I still have more cleanup to do, but at the moment these are the issues I see remaining (this list is for my own personal use as well)
  • Needs many more reference to Stras
  • A few missing citations still (one is marked), about cross dressing, the ballet etc.
  • Probably need a collage pic of the Duke and Duchess in the beginning of history
  • Emphasis on Luzzaschi and near absence of anyone else may be undue, I'm not sure
  • Note b needs to be expanded to include the similar contradiction from Pendle and Grove
  • Music section is a bit of a mess; badly organized and laid out. The composers
  • Really needs an image of sheet music (which I can engrave and then upload)
  • I don't think Yarris is a "high quality source"
  • Similar doubts about Kuhn
    • Looked at this further and believe its high quality enough – Aza24 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is a great long-ish quote from Vincenzo Giustiniani (in Burkholder) which could go in quote box for the Influence section
  • Lead needs a complete rewrite, including the names of important composers and singers
  • Minor clean up matters regarding linking first mentions (& overlinking) and giving translations to Italian terms
  • Overall, I think there are two main issues:
    • Rewrite of the music section
    • I think the whole article will have to be recontextualized a little. Too much emphasis on the Ferrera court and practically none in comparison for the equivalent ensembles at Mantua, Florence, etc. Britannica's article is (surprisingly) a good model in this regard Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems like the Wikipedia Library is down, so I can't do anything about Stras or the other concerti or the citation tag at the moment. I looked for an image of Duke and Duchess, but apparently there are only separate images. It seems like Monteverdi is more commonly mentioned than Luzzaschi in sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No worries! I have a PDF of Stras (which I can send?—email me if so) that I'm planning to add from. For the Duke/Duchess I meant a collage (double) image, which I've just added. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can't do anything before tomorrow, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Began to work a bit with Stras. I am going to warn folks that since musicology is very far from my areas of knowledge/interest, I am perhaps not the person to ask for a proper due weight evaluation. I got as far as p.167 in Stras. I've asked at WP:RX for one source for the crossdressing thing. Does anyone have access to this book? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just found a PDF. If you email me I can send it to you. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you up for rewriting the music section? This is a topic on which I understand essentially nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I think so. Was looking into what that would consist of earlier – Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aza24 where does this stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should hopefully be able to work on it this week. Back from vacation now. I think its definitely trending towards a positive direction Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aza24? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uhhhhhhh, sorry I am getting v distracted. I assure you all this is still on my radar Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Wilberforce Edit

Notified: [4], May 2022

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

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

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

Email Slp1?
This FAR was launched on 8 May; Slp1 has not posted since 7 May, so we can guess they haven't yet seen the FAR (someone might consider emailing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see an email address on her user page. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Email this user" is in the standard toolbox on the left-hand side of the page at User:Slp1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, NO, it seems it's under TOOLS in the skin I use. I did CTRL-F and did not see it... because it is under TOOLS... but thank you for telling me... and now I will look under TOOLS for email address... will email her... tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warning that posting on someone's talk page already sends an email to the address on record (there is no way to disable this as far as I know). However, it's always possible that she might respond to a second email. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only if you have your Preferences --> Notifications set that way (I don't, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself? However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.
The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews [5][6];[7][8][9][10][11]. It has been widely cited according to google scholar [12]. Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte, Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old. The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.
There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV in the facts cited from Hague. Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.
The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":
  • [13]-Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
  • [14] Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
  • [15] The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
  • [16] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
  • [17] William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.
The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources. None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this [18] which is rather old (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control. Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest) but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.
That's all I have time for now. Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC. But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again, but would welcome other eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done. The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buidhe: Is the source RS, or not? @Slp1: You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something. It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence (talkcontribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Harriet Tubman Edit

Notified: RL0919, Scartol, WikiProject New York (state), WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Women in Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject African diaspora, [24]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are unsourced passages and paragraphs and the prose is unnecessarily tortured in places, repetitive in others and imprecise elsewhere. Just in the first two paragraphs of the lead you have unnecessary convolution: "similary-enslaved people" for "fellow slaves"; repetition: "Born into chattel slavery ... Born into slavery" and imprecision: "irate enslaver" (it was an irate overseer not an irate owner, but this is not clear in the prose). DrKay (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I addressed some of the issues DrKay mentions, but I do think there's a need for further review. DK started at the top and I started at the bottom. I found unsourced content and a Legacy section that is seriously bloated compared to the tight four paragraphs of the FAC version. Certainly, Tubman's legacy has expanded since then, but the current length is unwarranted, and we could do with less detailed mention of each park and mural dedicated in her honor.
I looked for, but didn't find, major book-length works on Tubman published since 2008, but I bet there's some scholarship that should be evaluated and incorporated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had intended to stay well clear of the article about Harriet Tubman, yet here I am. I apologize for this “essay”, but it is how I organize my thoughts.
Using, there are (very roughly) about 170 items with “Harriet Tubman” in the title. Trying produced 2,542 Results. Limiting the search to print books in the last 10 years turned up 627 records. Further selection for non-juvenile history in the past five years gave a list of 62 books. There is even a 2022 book by Kate Clifford Larson called “Harriet Tubman : a reference guide to her life and works”. Even allowing for multiple editions, there might be several sources which are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. That doesn’t mean they all should be mentioned. After all, the title is “Harriet Tubman“ not “A Guide to Publications about Harriet Tubman“. But there might be too much reliance on Larson’s book.
People-first language
Language changes and sometimes it has to preceed changes of society’s viewpoint; gender-neutral language in job titles is a good example. But sometimes it might go too far, too fast, and we wind up with awkward references such as the “people who menstruate“ highlighted by J. K. Rowling. (I roll my eyes when people are censured for stating the title of the book “White Niggers of North America”. Perhaps it is one of those books being removed from libraries, or reissued under a title such as “White Enslaved African Americans of North America”.) With respect to this article, it doesn’t make sense to have a link entitled “enslavement” leading me to an article called “Slavery in the United States”.
In the past couple of months, I encountered terms such as “enslaved person” on Wikipedia. It is new to me and, like a new shoe, it isn’t as comfortable as the old. But neither was it so jarring that I couldn’t accept it. Wikipedia’s Manual of Style doesn’t recommend word usage. I found an article called People-first language. The article Slavery (not “enslavement”) covers such terminology, noting it is in dispute amongst historians.
My impression is that Wikipedia follows common usage. So it is not the role of Wikipedia to change society. Harriet Tubman probably described herself as a former slave not as a “formerly enslaved person”. I think Wikipedia should mirror the academic terminology of the past decade and not change until academics reach a consensus. When and if new terminology filters down and becomes the norm, in newspapers for example, the article should be changed to reflect it.
The article seems too long in places. While I believe in thorough referencing, a list of hundreds of references always suggests to me that an article is too detailed. An alternative is to refer readers to the articles about the Underground Railroad and the Raid on Combahee Ferry for more detail.
I agree that the legacy section is too long. It covers everything from opera to television, and could be condensed. If I wanted to know Tubman in detail, I would read a biography and consult two or three other books. So Wikipedia doesn’t need to repeat all the details.
As an example, I will criticize my recent attempt to add more information about Salem chapel. My intention was to globalize the article a bit more, prompted by a news item. However, the details of the news are temporary and should be replaced when the renovation project is complete. I didn’t remove any existing material about the chapel; the paragraph could certainly be condensed. It is relevant to say the chapel has been designated a Canadian historic site, but the phrase about how that came about isn’t necessary, just a reference.
The statement that she supported women’s suffrage by “working alongside women such as Susan B Anthony and Emily Howland” isn’t natural to me. Did Tubman actually work with Anthony and Howland, or is “alongside“ figurative? It strikes me as an effort to increase Tubman‘s status by association. Yet, at that, it assumes that the reader is immediately familiar with Susan B Anthony and Emily Howland, so it hinders the global readability of the article. I wouldn’t mention them unless it is possible to see more about their relationship with Tubman.
The comment about the plaque in Auburn New York which contains dialect forced me to look up the date. The time that it was erected is relevant to the language and her level of education so it should be there.
The map of key places in her life lacks red dots for Auburn and St Catherines.
Over All
The article seems heavy in promoting Harriet Tubman. While her accomplishments are remarkable, I really don’t want to read something which sounds like an application for sainthood. It doesn’t have to include everything. I have left some comments on the Tark page of the article questioning, in particular, whether Tubman truly planned and led (versus inspired and advised) a raid during the Civil War. Some biographers, and some editors, become enamoured of their subject, so I think it is especially important to maintain a neutral point of view in this article, and to ensure balance.
It needs some work but not necessarily a lot. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the moment I will just make a brief comment about the available sourcing: Because Tubman is a well-known and revered historical figure, there are multiple books produced about her every year, and her name is invoked in the titles of books that are not really about her (for example, Conjuring Harriet "Mama Moses" Tubman and the Spirits of the Underground Railroad or Harriet Tubman: 30 Lessons in Love, Leadership, and Legacy). Numerous pop history series have a volume for her. And for a 19th-century figure, there are public domain books that on-demand publishers can spam across every platform. So while there are some interesting newer volumes to look into, numbers from search results are not a meaningful indicator. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, with Scartol retired, cruft has accumulated, and Firefangledfeather's analysis is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hold in FAR, work ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC post-2008 scholarship will need to be incorporated, and I do not see anyone who is willing to take that on. Z1720 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Move to FARC I removed some cruft but the article needs a lot more. (t · c) buidhe 06:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments: I am not particularly experienced with FAR/FARC, but as the article's most substantial non-retired contributor, I would probably be in the nominator role if this were a new FAC, so I will leave judgment of the article to others. Instead I will react to some of the comments made above.
    • I already commented a bit about the most important point, new scholarship. As I expected, the vast majority of newer books discussing her are not going to be especially relevant for FA (children's books, books about political issues that invoke Tubman as an icon, etc.). I am reviewing about a half dozen potentially useful newer books in more detail and have already added information from a couple of them.
    • I and some other editors have already worked on compacting the Legacy section, which had indeed gotten bloated. For any other awkward wording or repetition, that's the sort of stuff that is harder for a heavily involved editor to spot, so I welcome any specific pointers or copyedits. If moving to FARC will help with that, so be it, but it can also happen any time.
    • Yes, she worked with Susan B. Anthony and Emily Howland. Tubman is sometimes the subject of excessive praise and puffery, but I don't believe that is in the article. She was a remarkable person with interesting and important accomplishments that are confirmed by reliable sources.
    • Regarding whether she "led" a raid during the war, I left a comment with perspectives from various sources in the Talk page discussion, and no one has commented there since. If there is any ongoing concern about that point, I hope people would reply there.
If this does go to FARC, I expect I will be leading the charge to "save" it, although it's not clear to me that such a step is needed. I think it needs spring cleaning and some updated furniture, not a major rebuild. But as I said, I leave judgment to others. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now would be a good time to work on that "spring cleaning" and "updated furniture"; there are no set deadlines at FAR or FARC, but steady improvement towards addressing issues is expected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RL0919 are you still planning to work on this article? The updating you mention is still needed. Along with the items mentioned above by others:

  • There is still uncited text, and reading within paras, attribution needs are found, sample [25]
  • At 8,300 words of readable prose, a separate "Legacy of" article might be considered.
  • Attention to pruning of External links ?
  • Sample prose issues, random look at one section:
    • Here, a new section (Later life) starts with saying years of service with whom or from what entity she never received compensation (some readers skip to read certain sections) ... Despite her years of service, Tubman never received a regular salary and was for years denied compensation.
    • Why do we need the height here ? One of the people Tubman took in was a 5-foot-11-inch-tall (180 cm) farmer named Nelson Charles Davis.
    • Odd ... New York responded with outrage to the incident,
    • Inflation adjustment would be useful: The 132-page volume was published in 1869 and brought Tubman some $1,200 in income.

Indy beetle have you any interest in helping restore this FA? Firefangledfeathers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably obvious to anyone who is watching the article itself, but for the benefit of those who might just look at this page: Yes, I am still working on the article. In edits since 27 April, I have updated sourcing, copyedited, clarified many of the specific questions that are asked above, and added inflation adjustments. A more thorough review of other sections is still in progress. Help/suggestions/critiques/etc. from any interested parties are still welcomed. --RL0919 (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'm coming out of a real-life stress swamp and have some other on-wiki work to pick up first. I'm very much around to help with this article, but I'm on the B team. RL's doing some great work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the update; good luck with the real life stuff! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updates have been done throughout to address most of the issues mentioned above. Since my comment in May, the Legacy of Harriet Tubman article suggested by SandyGeorgia has been created, and between trimming related to that and other copy edits, the article is about 600 words shorter. I've reviewed the images and made some updates to those. The issue that most concerned me personally, the need to incorporate more recent scholarship, has been addressed with updates based on several books from 2019 to 2022.
In terms of work still to do (that I know of): I'm still working on the "American Civil War" and "Later life" sections, which I hope to wrap up in the next couple of weeks. Then it would be good for someone who isn't me to give it a copyediting pass for "another set of eyes". And when everything else is done, I want to make sure all the citation formatting is consistent (which it mostly is already, but not 100%). Beyond that, if anyone has new concerns to raise (especially outside those two sections I'm still reviewing), it would be great to hear those. --RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refs look inconsistent: half one method, half the other. I'll fix them when I get time, sometime in the next 2 or 3 days. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 09:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me know when you finish and I can double check. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to help with the ce/eyes. Ping me when ready! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Firefangledfeathers: Refs done, feel free to double-check. Tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 07:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks great! I just made these two tweaks. The markup for the National Register of Historic Places is very complex. Is it intentional? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Firefangledfeathers:. Long story. It was a custom template ({{NRISref|version=2009a|name=Tubman, Harriet, Grave|refnum=99000348|access-date=July 23, 2019|dateform=mdy}}), but if I had left it alone, it would have displayed the full source in the References instead of the Sources... so I used subst e.g. {{NRISref|version= blah blah blah}} to get the output, then copy/pasted that into Sources and made a {{sfn}}. So the complicated markup is the output of subst. It is extremely possible that that can be trimmed down a lot, but I don't wanna fool with it. Maybe some other day, or maybe someone else. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I fooled with it in this edit. I left the "smart" url template and dispensed with the ones that seemed to be about getting the date format right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If no one else gets around to trimming the Legacy section (see the sprawling TOC relative to crit. 2b), I'd be willing to do that part. There is excess detail, excessive sectioning, and WP:SS can be better employed now that the sub-article Legacy of Harriet Tubman contains the detail. My suggestion is trimmed detail and verbosity to three sub-sections only:

  1. Parks, monuments and historical sites
  2. Works of art
  3. Other

The section can be reduced to about a third of what it is now. Examples-- plans to include her on 20-dollar bill haven't happened, and that is covered in sub-article. Excess detail on every work of art-- in sub-article. Ditto for parks. Look at this amount of detail-- all in the sub-article:

  • Tubman's life was first dramatized on television in 1963 on the CBS series The Great Adventure in an episode titled "Go Down Moses" with Ruby Dee starring as Tubman. In 1978, Cicely Tyson portrayed her for the NBC miniseries A Woman Called Moses, based on the novel by Heidish.

That could be:

  • Tubman's life was dramatized in the 1963 CBS television series The Great Adventure and in a 1978 NBC miniseries A Woman Called Moses.

Samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @SandyGeorgia: I'll try, although according to everyone at WT:FAC, trimming may not necessarily be my strong suit. :-) § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm happy to do it if that will help; the TOC alone indicates it's outta control now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm literally working on it at this moment. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ha ha, me too. See User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The section is now about half the length it was yesterday. (FWIW, it is 29% of what it was at the start of the review.) I tried to keep the core information, especially where notable artists or works are involved, while cutting back additional details. One thing I definitely did not do is remove the mention of the $20 bill proposal, which has been so widely covered in sources that omitting it seems unreasonable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Much better; appreciate the trim! I'll do a full read-through when everyone is done (pls ping). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unwatching because it seems you have things well in hand. Ping me if you need anything. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 04:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Juneteenth is upon us, and I'm happy to say I've reviewed all the sections and finished the updates I had in mind. Pinging the previous contributors to this discussion (DrKayFirefangledfeathersHumphrey TribbleSandyGeorgiaZ1720buidheLingzhi.Renascence) to thank them for their patience thus far and see if they want to update their earlier comments or suggest other possible improvements. --RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Indy beetle: this FA has advanced to save territory; did you want to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The legacy section is much improved. If it were my article, however, I would move more of the content on artistic portrayals, monuments, operas etc. to the sub-article leaving only the most important artistic representations mentioned by name. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I further compacted the Legacy section in this edit. The section is down to 430 words in a 7000-word article, so if there are further concerns about article length/readability, there is probably more opportunity in other sections. --RL0919 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RL0919, it's not so much about the word count as it is about what happens with list of artists etc-- they encourage spam and trivia additions down the road. Some criteria for why/what is included need to be established. For example, in medical articles, additions have to have made a lasting difference on public perception of the condition, ala, Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's, Samuel Johnson or Tim Howard with TS, or Robin Williams with Lewy bodies. That helps specifically avoid every mention of every notable person with the condition. I am concerned about the need to include individual artists here, as you will constantly be battling trivia additions, there is a sub-article where it is all laid out, and the TOC is still somewhat overwhelmed. See also J. K. Rowling, where we got it all tightly summarized into one section, no sub-sections, although her works and recognition go well beyond books. Perhaps if you could think not so much about word count, but about more tightly summarizing to avoid mentions of individuals unless they fulfill some pre-set criteria. (And thanks for the fine work ... I hope to do a read through by the end of this week.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There hasn't been any previous explicit discussion about it, but there is a standard at work in the content as it stands now: For every artistic portrayal mentioned, either the artist or the work is notable. There doesn't seem to be so much notable artistic content about her that a tighter standard would be needed at this point. The only thing that seems to be produced in great volume is juvenile biographies, and that type of content in general is rarely notable. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't mind the current length. One way to help forestall the cruft is to have a talk page discussion with consensus for inclusion criteria. I'm fine with notable artist or work. It still takes maintenance work to keep it clean, but at least we'll have something to point to. I'm starting the discussion now, and all are welcome to chime in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hope to be able to spot-check some of the citations this week. I'll have a running list of concerns/questions below, and you should feel free to interpolate responses. Without further ado, some FFFeedback:
    • Was Tubman a mystic? The article is in two mystic-related categories, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to more. Regarding the categories, she had religious visions, which is a type of mystical experience, so I assume that's the relevance in the mind of whoever added them. I don't typically have a lot of strong opinions about categories, so YMMV. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Are the page numbers right on Knauer? I don't have access, but I'm seeing in a few places that it has 240 total pages. The thing I was hoping to check was that her first TV dramatization was in The Great Adventure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The correct reference for that information is Sernett, but it had gotten disconnected from the citation during rewrites. I added a new cite for it. As for Knauer, I'm using an e-book edition and the e-book ISBN is used in the ref list. Looking at Worldcat, it says that the edition with this ISBN has 248 pages, but I have it open now and there are 355 pages. So either the publisher is mixing up their ISBNs or Worldcat has inaccurate pages data for the edition. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "She reportedly received no anesthesia ..." This is stated as fact in Walters. Do we need the "reportedly"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It is a story from Tubman's own account, and AFAIK that detail has no other verification. Most sources seem to take it at face value, but Hobson and Dunbar do not. Dunbar calls it "virtually impossible" and an "embellishment" by Tubman. Hobson classifies it as a "strong Black woman" story that is repeated (whether or not it is is true) to emphasize Tubman's bravery. So without taking the article into a historiographic discussion, it seemed worth that small qualification. --RL0919 (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Tubman was buried with semi-military honors ..." Clinton says "military honors". Why "semi-military"?
      • That is prior text that I didn't change, but sifting through the sources, I would guess that "semi-military" came from Sernett (p. 181) because that's the only place I saw that specific term. The detailed descriptions of the funeral services do sound like a private service that has been given some military trappings, rather than an official military funeral. There was an American flag on her casket, but no military chaplain or other official formalities. An "honor guard" was provided by the women's auxiliary of the Grand Army of the Republic (a veteran's group) rather than by the government. That seems consistent with the shabby way she was treated by the government in life after the war. I favor keeping the wording and updating the ref to be Sernett instead of Clinton. --RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I complete my citation spot-check, having reviewed 10 randomly selected footnotes (24 37 40 56 106 113 142 143 166 203). The only issue was with citation 203 (Larson xv). It doesn't support "A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War." I'm guessing the details come from some other source. If we want to keep using Larson, I'd go with something like "By the 1980s, Tubman was one of American history's most famous figures." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Scartol added the sentence back in 2007 with that citation, so unfortunately there isn't another source hidden in the history that accidentally got removed. I've changed to your suggested wording, which I like better anyway since it is more general. --RL0919 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @DrKay, Humphrey Tribble, SandyGeorgia, Z1720, and Buidhe: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Here are a few thoughts to consider. I’m content to rely on the good work and experience already applied.
    While diagnosis isn’t possible, it seems clear to me that she had a brain injury as a result of the blow to her head. I’d like to see those words “brain injury” if possible. Narrowing  it down is speculation although some of her symptoms sound like what would be expected from concussion.
    Larson mentions brain injury as a possibility, so I incorporated the term in the sentence about her view. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    “When the Civil War broke out in 1861, Tubman saw a Union victory as a key step toward the abolition of slavery.”
    I presume Clinton is the source for that. However, saying she “saw” it means she thought so, and unless that thought is documented by her or a direct source, we cannot know what she was thinking.
    This was older text that I had not changed. Upon investigation, it turns out that she had one of her visions, so "saw" was carrying a meaning that probably would not have been expected. I reworded the sentence to make the nature of her belief more clear. In any case, she told others about it and it was documented in the biographies written with her cooperation. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The next sentence says “General Benjamin Butler, for instance, aided escapees flooding into Fort Monroe in Virginia.” This doesn’t seem connected to the previous sentence. Perhaps it is a leap of thought which doesn’t happen for me. So I suggest considering removal of the mention of Butler.
    The context of the "contraband" camps is important to explain what Tubman was doing as a volunteer nurse, so I would not want to omit that. The sentence-to-sentence connection is that she expected all slaves to be freed within a few years, but many of them freed themselves even sooner. I revised to try to make the connection more clear. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Combahee River Raid
    Hyperbole: In the intro, I disagree with the bare statement “The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the raid at Combahee Ferry, which liberated more than 700 enslaved people” for the reasons I’ve given before.
    Later, it says “widely credited as the first woman to lead U.S. troops in an armed assault.” I think several contemporary and modern sources are needed to support that. Wording such as “XXX newspaper lauded her as the first…” is fine. Are there 3 modern historians who say she led the raid?
    More than three. I gave some examples previously on the article's Talk page, and have found more since. More importantly, Sernett's critique of exaggerations about Tubman, which includes this point, is founded on the fact that the claims are widespread. The "widely credited" phrasing acknowledges that without asserting that this claim is definitely true. The big mistake here was that I changed it in the body text but forgot to update the lead, which I've now done. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I’d rather have facts than icons. That said, proceed if the icon is more important since she deserves it more than a lot of built-up heros.
    “When the steamboats sounded their whistles, enslaved people throughout the area understood that they were being liberated.”
    - again, this implies knowledge of what people were thinking.
    They were told what to expect by Tubman and her fellow spies, so it's not unfounded speculation. Added more explanation and a citation. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There has never been a political entity called “Southern Ontario”. That term should not be used except in the most general sense of identifying the geographic area. It would be reasonable to say she guided people to an area which is NOW part of southern Ontario in Canada. Tubman went there somewhere between 1851 and the beginning of the American Civil War. So her destination was the Province of Canada. If it is stated as such, it is distinguished from the present country called Canada. (Note that the former upper Canada was known as Canada West after the merger which created the province of Canada. However, “Canada West” isn’t much more tangible than southern Ontario.)
    I don't believe anything in the article says the region was a political entity, and it is linked to the article about it that describes it as a geographical region, not a province or country. I did change the references to "Ontario" at the first mentions of St. Catherines and Chatham, since that is the name of the modern province that did not exist then. There was already an endnote that mentioned the succession of political entities as part of the explanation of abolition there; I amended that to be more clear that this is a geographical area. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In view of the preceding, references to St. Catherines Ontario and Chatham Ontario are questionable. It is like referring to San Antonio Texas before Texas existed or Chicago before the war of 1812 Humphrey Tribble (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for following up. Replies interspersed into your comments above. Let me know if you notice any other concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex Pistols Edit

Notified: DocKino (DCGeist sock), Ceoil, Ss112, WP bio, WP Rock music, WP Punk music, WP London, formally noticed on January 27, but concerns were raised much earlier

An old brilliant prose entry last formally reviewed in 2006. Ceoil expressed concerns about "excitable language and bloat"; there's certainly tone issues here, with language such as "got frisky with", and the article talk page is littered with concerns about the tone. At over 11,000 words, the article also needs to be closely examined for summary style issues; I imagine that fixing some of the tone issues will go a long ways on that front. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hog, at a first glance it seems doable, but jeez it seems like 2006 all over again (one of my first introductions to wiki review processes), except then it was too short, now its too long :) The sources are still 90% high quality with no major gaps in sourcing or coverage. The writing is fine (both grammatically and re clarity), and it hasn't bloated or suffered much prose-line since the 2010 Geist re-write. The major issue is obviously, as you say, tone; but that's more trimming than heavy lifting. Extensive spot checks of refs would also be needed, though from scanning in last half hour am seeing few doubtful claims (as an obsessive since 1985-86). Will update in a few weeks after chipping away. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a note, have all the cited book sources. Most of the heavy work here will be on standardising the ref formats, esp if somebody turns up and ask for 13 digit isbns, and everything is snf (neither of which I care about). Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, don't see either of those things being necessary. Have always preferred to use the isbn in the print book, instead of some new ISBN 13 that may or may not actually be associated with the original volume. Personally a fan of sfns, but it would be a truly massive nightmare to try to convert over to those here. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It possible to check the book edition via snippet view, but have most of the book sources still from the 2006 FAR. Phew re snf - I like it too, but such an effort to convert would make the overall task not worthwile. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ceoil and Hog Farm: Re. The Pistols, I have no sources at all, but re. refs, I've had a go at transferring to {{snf}}, including a separate notes section. I chose one of the most common sources (Savage), and it's not as bad as it seems. (All now self-reverted of course.) He takes up ~half the refs, so although it'll be a job of work, the bulk shouldn't take too long; the rest will be polishing (aligning editions with with ISBNs etc., as noted above). What think ye? SN54129 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SN54129:, I mean that would be great...but hope you know what you are letting yourself in for! On the + side, this will take around 3 months anyway. Thanks if you decide so, and can help. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hog as an update, am tying to pull in other editors to help trim. My heavy rotation playlist has changed since the nom from 2020s techno to classic punk rock, so thanks for that. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Noting that the image and sound file licensing also needs to be covered off. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to thank Ceoil for inviting me to help. I'll see if the resulting trims flow well for a read, and do my own business here as well. Carlinal (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Carlinal and Ceoil: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apologies for not responding earlier; my college semester is over. I'll be giving this one a read over for the coming week.
    Also note that I am an American editor. If any of my edits seem out of place in dialect please adjust my writing accordingly. Thank you! Carlinal (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nikki, good. I think it can be saved. Most of the excitable prose have ben toned down. Serial 54129 has sorted most of the refs. Will make a final push shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ceoil pls ping when you are ready for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia @Nikkimaria @Ceoil It's been 3 months since the oldest comment in this reevaluation, so I thought it's necessary to ping you guys. Any of you willing to close this review yet? As for me, my edits shouldn't make a difference, aside maybe from returning one from one of their reunions. Carlinal (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uncited text, HarvRef errors everywhere (you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js), and the article can probably be trimmed. As a DCGeist and sock article, it needs closer scrutiny. Also, attention need to MOS:ELLIPSES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Ah, some of that is on me: looking back at that, I finished all the SFNs (except for a couple, which are still there, which I can't find, so will need a subject expert to identify the documentaries etc, then I can do any necessary formatting), and I see my last edit summary to the page says 'bibliography next'. Which obvs I forgot. So I'll sort out all the harv errors (except the identifiers for famous publications of course) such as locations etc. God knows when I'll get to it, what with Eddie Three of course *facepalm* but something will work out! SN54129 15:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Serial Number 54129 No hurry ... I just got around to a full FAR-runthrough after several miserable weeks of my life, and if I don't add stuff when I see it, who knows when I'll get to it next. As long as FAR knows you're working, we aren't rushed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I removed an England's Dreaming citation because it was not formatted. Can someone check that out? Carlinal (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carlinal: per WP:REF, While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. SN54129 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Have fixed (by removing unused) the harv errors, and implemented MOS:ELLIPSES. Have started to trim, although its not so much that there is too much coverage as too many words. ps SN, will help re "subject expert" for documentaries etc, and can address the recently (and correctly) added cn tags. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers Ceoil, I admit I was thinking of you when I said that!  :) SN54129 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ps to Sandy, re Geist et al, Hog mentions in the nom above that a reason for the nom was my concerns re the music journalist tone of the page...this has mostly been removed. I'm not too concerned re accuracy, v. familar with the sources and nothing have seen so far in the page gives worry our sounds dubious. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thx, Ceoil-- glad you are on the job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nikki, we (ie SN) are almost done on standardising the citations style/ switching to snf, and most of the excitable prose has been removed, and the article has been trimmed where the detail has been excessive. Not yet ready to sign off, as need another cold read thorough and resulting fixes; think that's about 3 weeks away - given conflicting priorities. When I am ready, would be most appreciative if User:SandyGeorgia was to give a run though for further improvements. Thanks for patience as always. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceoil, as soon as I'm able, but life is crazy, so re-ping me if necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are two citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I can't tell what this source is (there is no publisher listed): Reid, Jamie (June 2004). "The Art of Punk". Archived from the original on 6 December 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where do I find this "commentary"? For the management termination, see also Temple, Julien, "Commentary", 1:30:38–1:30:51. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't done any reading yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have done some cutting based on your feedback, although although Reid, Jamie (June 2004) comes from a major protagonist, don't have the book, so gone; although it should give confidence as to the page's integrity. Re "commentary", its the dvd bonus from Temple's "The Filth And The Fury" film, which is, a reliable source (although I intensely dislike his presentation of the pistol's post Lyndon's exit). Mulling and thinking about this....i really don't want to subscribe to the website to listen to his revisitionalist, self serving, bullshit. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very new to Wikipedia so my apologies if this is out of place for me to say but I was wondering why you consider Temple's commentary tracks on the Filth and the Fury to be self serving and revisitionalist as you put it? If that's what you are referring to. Theotherdavis (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ref issues being worked through on talk[26]. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record I gave up on this. I sorted all the refs (cept for a couple which I had to leave for our in-house expert!), and would've given them a tidy up at the end. But despite knowing here that I was going to convert to sfn, a load of citebanditry has been going on, there's a shedload of harv-error messages thrown up, so what's the point: on 15 Jul 1902, the Leckhampton Stalwarts led a march of 2,000 people to Leckhampton Hill, where they tore down a cottage built by the new quarry owner that blocked a right of way and filled in a pit where working people held a fair every Easter. SN54129 10:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see no harv error messages ?
    And yes, you indicated you were going to convert to sfn, but the earlier samples indicated converting books to sfn, not the websources. When I started checking through the websources for reliability, the picture changed. We've got some dubious sources, and publishers are not authors; converting websources to sfn when most of them have no author requires convoluted templates, which I've been working on, but I suggest moving those back to citation templates once the full information on each and reliability issues are worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Reviewing on talk, work ongoing: [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SN, tearing down cottages is my fault; I asked you to sort all the refs, am now finding some of them are not so reliable. That's on me. BUT progess is being made on talk. Thank you very much for the hours put in, but sorry man, I fked up. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think we'll get there ... slowly but surely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nikki, status is (roughly): I need a final run through on sources not used and prose before asking Sandy to look again. The article is getting bursts of attention and work (SN54129, me, SG). my feeling is that a plan for meeting the criteria is in sight :) Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Agree this is doable but may take time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jefferson Davis Edit

Notified: Omnedon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Mississippi, talk page notice 2022-09-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been noticed for about a month with no changes. The sourcing has quite a bit of problems listed here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • From the bibliography, I have Davis 1996, Foner 1988, McPherson 1989, and Woodworth 1990. I can help push this over the line if somebody's going to take over, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the massive resourcing that this will take. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lost Cause propaganda whispers regularly throughout the text. I believe it would require a full rewrite to replace the psudohistory with the current scholarly consensus. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Vami_IV wants to take this on, I think that would work great. But, I'm wrapping up work on trying to keep Andrew Jackson out of the depths of FAR. If I'm successful, I'm willing to explore the life of Jefferson Davis, as his legacy is quite topical. It's not where I would've planned to have wandered, but it looks worthwhile and Jackson has already taken me into the former Choctaw lands of Mississippi anyway, so I feel like I'm visiting the neighborhood anyway. The sources Hog Farm mentioned are available on archive, and I think there are a lot of other supportive resources I can use. If I did take it on though, I think the second half of the article from "strategic failures" on would require a major overhaul. My preference would be to discuss his legacy in terms of the controversial issues: At first glance these look like: Role in Confederate defeat, attitudes toward slavery, post-war reputation (e.g., lost cause and the like). I suspect any work I did would be extensive enough that I'd need copy editing help when I'm done, and a couple of committed folk to give it a mini-FA-like look over. If it is best to leave it to another editor who feels more expert, I'm good with that. Thoughts? (I'll ping Guerillero too.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm fairly busy and am slowly working on a project in my sandbox to fix up Siege of Vicksburg, but I can help. We also need to factor in length concerns - prosesize tool is showing over 11,000 words, and the legacy needs more (and better) material. IMO the best places to cut fat are the death and burial section, the author section, and the gigantic mess of excess detail of all of court cases regarding him getting Brierfield back. We'll need more general biographies than just William C. Davis, but if there's going to be a push I can try to collect a few more together once I'm done with Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I appreciate that quick response! I'll wait to see how others weigh in, but it sounds like it'd be a worthwhile adventure just to get the opportunity to work with you. I've seen your style indirectly, and I admire it, but it would be very interesting to get a more direct sense of it. I think this is one of those articles where there is a chance of reaching SandyGeorgia's ideal of 9000 words or so. The article seemed filled with unneeded detail, and starts only at 11,000 words, so I think the odds are good. As to sources, I'm suspecting we'll be able to get plenty. (Though its possible I'd be wrong.) Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I won't be able to do a whole lot until after Thanksgiving - I'm traveling that week, and I'll be taking the third part of the CPA exam hopefully before then. I should have plenty of time after then, though. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Send me a bibliography and, let the record show, I can do some great things. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sounds like Vami IV is on it! I'll be here if there's any need to pick up momentum later, just ping me, but it sounds like its in good hands! Wtfiv (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv/Vami IV: I am not in a rush. Take your time. We can come back to this in December, since I am getting married in November and will be away for most of the month. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you all have big projects right now, both life and wikiwise. (Hogfarm on finishing up the CPA; and Guerillo, marriage is a huge project, no matter what the context. To both of you congratulations!)
      I've got a little more time right now- though November may be more touch and go- so I can pitch in for now while you are taking care of the other issues, just starting on the citation sourcing the biography. If the narrative is already complete, it shouldn't be too difficult. That'll help build a bibliography for Vami's use when he's ready. Once someone else is ready to take over ping me on the talk page. Conversely, if I see major changes to be made I'll ping on the talk page as well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Work is ongoing on the legacy section; the rest has been largely rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think I'm pretty much done adding content. I got done the first draft of legacy and am now just cleaning it up, but I think I'm feeling like I'm done with content at this point. I'm willing to to do whatever else is needed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Guerillero As nominator, what are your thoughts? Is it set? Does it need "next steps"? Here is my summary of how I've attempted to addresss the issues listed here.
      After I addressed them, I reworked the lead, mainly the last paragraph, to reflect the changes.
      • Family background: section rewritten. Removed much of the geneology, which was unclear.
      • Childhood: section rewritten and sourced.
      • Sourcing' is old and relies on Jim Crow era Southern Universities: have been brought up to date.(~45% of sources 21st century; ~40% 2000-1970; 15% earlier, not counting original sources.) Only two books are from Jim Crow era Southern Universities, Owsley's (1959) study on king cotton and Sulzby's (1960) book on Alabama Hotels.
        • Allen 1999 has a lost cause problem: Allen's biography is indeed quite different from the rest. Not used and has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Coulter's work has similar problems: Coulter is no longer used as a source.
        • Dodd 1907 is probably superseded by later work: Dodd has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Eaton 1977 was described as "admiring" by reviewers: Kept Eaton as third perspective in biography, but used less frequently. (For biographies: Cooper 2000 is ~107 times; Davis 1991 ~77; Eaton 1977 ~36). Eaton is sympathetic to Davis, but can be critical. His sourcing seems good, and sometimes he does a better summary than Cooper or Davis.
        • Patrick 1944's from 1945 makes me skeptical: Patrick has been moved to "Bibiography" spin-off.
        • Strode's three part biography is neo-Confederate hogwash and should be nowhere near a serious article about Davis: Strode's volumes have been move to the "Bibliography" spin-off.
      • The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause: Legacy has been entirely rewritten. There are new sections at the end.
        • "Political views on slavery" summarizes Davis's views on slavery. The description of each is supported by academic secondary sources, and each one is accompanied by an accessible link to one of Davis's speeches so readers can verify for themselves whether the summary is correct. (Throughout the article, I reference Jefferson's public works. The summaries are based on secondary sources, but the original sources allow readers to determine for themselves if the summaries are accurate.)
        • "Performance as commander in chief" addresses the evaluation of his leadership by historians. It also separates the evaluation from the Civil War narrative. The article originally seemed to be emphasizing Pollard's points in the early "Lost Cause" mythology, embedding the evaluations of Davis in the narrative and implying that his actions lost the War. The section addresses the negative evaluations, the mixed evalutions, and even the relatively positive ones.
        • "Legacy" addresses the evolution of Davis's image into a lost cause hero and the controversies sparked by the symbolism of his image in the 21st century.
      • Citation style is inconsistent: Style is now sfn and sfnm (I like citing multiple authors when each describes the same point or facts from a slightly different perspective).
      Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv: You did an extraordinary job! My objections have been quenched and I am ready to move to retain the article as an FA. Thank you for working on this. Having a balanced article on David goes a long way to improve our coverage of the American Civil War. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'll try to read through it again this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reviewed on talk. Once the last few straggling comments are worked through, I'll be comfortable with the content here and I am comfortable with the sourcing used. It's a bit longer than ideal, but I'm too much of a nerd in this topic area to be good at suggesting things to pare down; I routinely read 500-600 page books on the Civil War for fun. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Hog Farm. I appreciate your review. The care for Civil War articles is clear, as is your patience for editors who may be less expert. I think the issues you mentioned have now been addressed. And, I'm glad you are okay with the content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'll make it clearer that I'm ready to close without FARC as well. The length isn't ideal, though, but I'm not sure what the best way to fix that would be. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns have all been addressed here. Thanks for you hard work on this, Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read through the article and, after some minor copyediting, I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SG review

  • There are inconsistent p and pp throughout the citations (too many for me to fix), eg Davis 1991, pp. 4–5 but Cooper 2000, p. 12–14, and Cooper 2000, pp. 23–24 but Davis 1991, p. 23–24.
  • Jeff in Petticoats is an odd external link; if it's notable, why not it's own article?
    • I'm inclined to consider this EL useless, so I've removed it. There were many songs about Davis in the 19th century, no point to single out one. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Senator and Secretary of War" section (a level two heading) begins with: Davis took his seat in December and was appointed as a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Readers selecting to skip down to read a section should not have to backtrack to guess which year and which seat.
  • There are about 20 instances of the word also which should be reviewed for almost-always-redundant redundancy.
  • For an 11,000 word article, it is unclear why this bit of what seems to be trivia makes it in to the lead: Only two survived him, and only one married and had children. (Perhaps this will be revealed as I read?)
    • Removed; I was unsure about the inclusion of this in the lead when I did my read-through. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MOS:SEASON: In spring, Taylor had him assigned ...
  • Why do we need to know the final parts of this sentence? Davis gradually improved, and briefly traveled to Havana, Cuba, to restore his health and returned home via New York and Washington, D.C., where he visited his old schoolmate from Transylvania College, George Wallace Jones.[43]
  • What does it refer back to ? He made his first slave, James Pemberton, its overseer,
    • "It" here is Briarfield. Wtfiv - I have a greater concern here. I checked my print copy of Davis, and he refers to Montgomery as "virtually overseer", not that Davis appointed him as one. Because a black man as a plantation overseer would have been very odd for that time, I think it's best to reword this. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • updated. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hog Farm Pemberton's role as overseer is ambiguous: Cooper 2008, p. 128 states Davis decide to leave his lsave overwee, James Pemberton, in charge. I'll stay with Davis and added "effective" Wtfiv (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Advocating ... advocated ... vary wording ... advocating for the nomination of John C. Calhoun over Martin Van Buren who was the party's original choice. Davis preferred Calhoun because he advocated for southern interests
  • Vacancy ... vacated ... vary wording ... appointment by Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,[82] which had been vacated by the death

I am going to stop for now, as there are still copyedit needs. Also, as an example of how to cut down the excessive prose size, I offer this overly detailed paragraph:

  • Before his resignation, Davis had sent a telegraph message to Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus informing him that he was available to serve the state. On January 27, 1861, Pettus appointed him a major general of Mississippi's army.[137] On February 10, Davis learned that he had been unanimously elected to the provisional presidency of the Confederacy by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama,[138] which consisted of delegates from the six states that had seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama.[139] Davis was chosen because of his political prominence,[140] his military reputation,[141] and his moderate approach to secession,[140] which could bring Unionists and undecided voters over to his side.[142] Davis had been hoping for a military command,[143] but he accepted and committed himself fully to his new role.[144] Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens were inaugurated on February 18.[145] The procession for the inauguration started at Montgomery's Exchange Hotel, the location of the Confederate administration and Davis's residence.[146]

The paragraph is a sample of wordiness that can be trimmed, and I suggest checking throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I think style issues may have to be addressed by another editor. Please see note on talk page.Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confederate Congress ?? Clarify here ? In his opening address to Congress on January 12, ... no Wikilink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Opportunities to cut down the excessive wordiness are easy to find. Do we really need, " He began writing his memoirs almost immediately"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do we need the final clause here? Southern Historical Society has a link for exploring what it is. I suggest there are opportunities for trimming the prose throughout. In the 1870s, Davis was invited to become a member of the Southern Historical Society, an organization founded by Reverend J. William Jones with the former Confederate general Jubal A. Early as its president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A wikilink review should also be conducted, as I found confederate congress and 1860 election unlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article can easily be cut to under 10,000 words of readable prose. There is excess detail on the history of the Civil War everywhere one looks, and as but one sample, trimming off-topic detail from this one sample para cuts it almost in half. Hurricane Plantation (which belonged to Jefferson's brother) has its own article and need not be explored here, and BTW, if his brother retained the title to the property, he did not "give" it to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current (97 words) Proposed (53 words)
When Davis returned to Mississippi he decided to become a planter.[37] His brother Joseph was successfully converting his large holdings at Davis Bend, about 15 miles (24 km) south of Vicksburg, Mississippi, into Hurricane Plantation, which would eventually have 1,700 acres (690 ha) of cultivated fields and over 300 slaves.[38] He gave Davis 800 acres (320 ha) of his land to start a plantation at Davis Bend, though Joseph retained the title to the property. He also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves to clear and cultivate the land, which Jefferson would name Brierfield Plantation. Davis returned to Mississippi and become a planter. His brother Joseph provided him 800 acres (320 ha) of land from the large holdings he was converting into Hurricane Plantation at Davis Bend. Joseph retained the title to the property, which Jefferson named Brierfield Plantation, and also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves.
  • Suggested change above implemented, but was reverted by another editor. Subsequently change "give" to "provided", as per suggestion.

This article has actually grown in size during its FAR; it does not need to be over 10,000 words, and a second pass to eliminate fluff should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • See talk for expansion. I think other editors may have to edit fluff. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A would audit would also be helpful. There are 35 instances of would, as in the sample para above, and this one: received a land grant near what would become Washington, Georgia ---> received a land grant near what became Washington, Georgia. See WP:WOULDCHUCK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See talk
Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opportunities to trim verbosity remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think we still need to trim the content down. I'm severely burnt out, so I don't think I'll be able to work on it much. Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Same for me, Hog Farm. I enjoyed fixing the article to meet the issues Guerillo mentioned, but since I added the content, I think it'd be helpful if another editor to determine what is not useful, superfluous, or over wordy. (I did try to make the suggested change, but it was edited.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My personal opinion is that Wtfiv, Hog Farm, et al. transformed the article into a piece of high-quality scholarship. We should keep the star based on the research done. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • What issues remain outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The content and sourcing concerns that led to the original review have been addressed. The article is 2.2K words above the recommended 10K for FA articles. Wtfiv (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia:? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In response to ping, the article needs a copyedit for prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity; it wouldn't get out of FAC like this, and we should do more than patch up articles when they clear FAR. Wtfiv does an excellent job of reflecting sources and hewing to them, but unfortunately, with this excessively long article, people give up on the ce phase, and documenting the remaining ce needs takes SOOOOO much time because of the article size. I'll put together some examples this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random samples only to illustrate copyedit and prose tightening needs (not comprehensive):

  • General: scan the text for the number of paragraphs that begin with repetitive phrases related to timing-- not only dates, but "after x" and "around this time" and "in the ... " and "on such and such date".
  1. . This section has four paragraphs; three of them have topic sentences starting with the time period, and giving the reader (who may want to scan for topic sentences) no idea what the paragraph is about.
  2. Refused ... refused ... consecutive sentences.
  3. "had dropped its case"?
  4. Why do we care about the Peabody Hotel enough to mention it twice, much less at all?
  5. any work
  6. Why do we have to mention Bragg here?
  7. Declining because of insufficient salary is implied, redundant.

In general, just because a source says something, we don't have to include it (verbosity, prose tightening).

May 8 version, 169 words Suggestions, 141 words (16% reduction)
After his release from prison, Davis faced continued financial pressures, but he refused to accept any work that he perceived as diminishing his status as a former U.S. Senator and Confederate President.[1] He refused a position as head of Randolph–Macon College in Virginia because he was still under indictment and did not want to damage its reputation.[2] In the summer of 1869, he traveled to Britain and France looking for business opportunities, but failed to find any.[3] After the federal government had dropped its case against Davis,[4] he returned to the United States in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company of Memphis, Tennessee. He left his family in England because he was not financially stable. Davis moved into the Peabody Hotel and committed himself to work, hiring former friends such as Braxton Bragg to serve as agents. Soon after his return, he was offered the top post at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, but he declined because of the insufficient salary.[5] Despite his financial situation, after his prison release, Davis refused work that he perceived as diminishing his status as a former senator and president.[1] He turned down a position as head of Randolph–Macon College in Virginia because he did not want to damage the school's reputation while he was under indictment.[2] In the summer of 1869, he traveled to Britain and France seeking business opportunities, but failed to find any.[3] After the federal government dropped its case against him,[4] Davis returned to the U.S. in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company in Tennessee. Leaving his family in England, he lived in a hotel and committed himself to work, hiring former friends to serve as agents. Shortly afterwards, he was offered the top post at the University of the South, which he declined because of the salary.[5]
  1. This paragraph starts with him going back to Europe for his family, but what is the para about (much more).
  2. Why do we need to know he was there when he found out his brother died; the date of his brother's death is later mentioned in the same section, where the relevance is established.
  3. Why do we need to know they stayed at the same hotel or eventually rented a house; this is all trivia.
  4. The by-date, by-date, by-date recounting in this section is reminiscent of proseline, but it's actually probably coming from a desire to include every detail, although some of this detail is not important to a broad biography.
  5. One of the sentence here is much too long, what Tony1 called "a snake".
  6. <public> eulogy, implied in rest of sentence, redundant
  7. merged the company with another firm redundant (what else do you merge a company with)?
May 8 version, 209 words Suggestions, 162 words (22% reduction)
Davis went back to England to get his family in late summer of 1870. While there, he learned that his brother Joseph had died.[6] When they returned, they first stayed at the Peabody Hotel, but eventually rented a house. When Robert E. Lee died in 1870, Davis delivered a public eulogy at the Lee Monument Association held in Richmond on November 3, emphasizing Lee's character and avoiding politics.[7] He received other invitations. He declined most, but he gave the commencement speech at the University of the South in 1871[8] and a speech to the Virginia Historical Society at White Sulphur Springs declaring that the South had been cheated, and would not have surrendered if they had known what to expect from Reconstruction,[8] particularly the changed status of freed African Americans.[9] After the Panic of 1873 severely affected the Carolina Life Company, Davis resigned in August 1873 when the directors merged the company with another firm over his objections.[10] Davis went back to England in January 1874 looking to convince an English insurance company to open a branch in the American South, but heard that animosity toward him in the North was too much of a liability. He also explored other possibilities of employment in France, but none worked out.[11]

After he retrieved his family from England in 1870, Davis received invitations to speak.[6] He avoided politics in his 1870 eulogy to Robert E. Lee at the Lee Monument Association in Richmond, emphasizing Lee's character instead.[7] He declined most opportunities, but gave the 1871 commencement speech at the University of the South.[8] He declared in a speech to the Virginia Historical Society that the South had been cheated, and would not have surrendered if they had known what to expect from Reconstruction,[8] particularly the changed status of freed African Americans.[9] After the Panic of 1873 severely affected the Carolina Life Company, Davis resigned in August 1873 when the directors merged the company over his objections.[10] He returned to England in 1874 looking to convince an English insurance company to open a branch in the American South, but heard that animosity toward him in the North was too much of a liability. He explored other employment possibilities in France, but none worked out.[11]


  1. ^ a b Collins 2005, p. 29.
  2. ^ a b Cooper 2000, p. 586.
  3. ^ a b Eaton 1977, p. 263.
  4. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 663.
  5. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 584–589.
  6. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 665.
  7. ^ a b Cooper 2000, p. 216.
  8. ^ a b c d Collins 2005, p. 21.
  9. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 667.
  10. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 594–596.
  11. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 559–600.

I have pointedly chosen non-controversial (I hope) and non-political sections for illustrating that prose can be tightened. I don't expect my examples to be followed too closely, as I know my prose is less than optimal; these are for illustration purposes only. The article does not need to be as wordy as it is, a copyedit and fine-tuning is still needed and verbosity can be cut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No progress; copyedit still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I'll have some time to look at this at the end of next week. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slowly going through trying to trim, although I've run into a query for Wtfiv Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1#Surrender of Black Hawk? on talk. On another note, I'm personally inclined to trim some of the details about his; for instance, I don't know that letting the readers know that Varina Anne died single at age 34 is necessarily the best use of our limited word count available. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that sounds reasonable, HF -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HF's edits popped on my watchlist, so I skipped down ahead of where he has worked to see if anything has changed in the month since I last visited (it doesn't seem that anyone else has taken this on); one can still view any section (I didn't look at the top where HF is working) and find excess verbosity. Samples:

Author: the entire paragraph about the Southern Historical Society meanders and has repetitive verbosity. We start by saying he was invited to join, then a lengthy description of what it is (it has its own article), and then we say he joined. What's wrong with "in the 1870s, Davis became a life-time member" instead of saying that twice?

Paragraph edited and here to address point. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • "left Beauvoir" redundant, obviously
  • northbound steamer ... well, it sure wasn't southbound.
  • the next two weeks = two weeks.
June 11, 147 words Suggestions, 128 words (14% reduction)
In November 1889, Davis left Beauvoir and embarked on a steamboat in New Orleans in a cold rain to visit his Brierfield plantation. He fell ill during the trip, but refused to send for a doctor. An employee at Brierfield telegrammed Varina, who took a northbound steamer from New Orleans and transferred to his vessel mid-river. He finally got medical care and was diagnosed with acute bronchitis complicated by malaria.[1] When he returned to New Orleans, Davis's doctor Stanford E. Chaille pronounced him too ill to travel and he was taken to the home of Charles Erasmus Fenner, the son-in-law of his friend J. M. Payne. Davis remained bedridden but stable for the next two weeks. He took a turn for the worse in early December, and died at 12:45 a.m. on Friday, December 6, 1889, in the presence of several friends and holding Varina's hand.[2] In November 1889, Davis embarked on a steamboat in New Orleans in a cold rain, intending to visit his Brierfield plantation. He fell ill during the trip, but refused to send for a doctor, and an employee telegrammed Varina, who took a steamer to meet his vessel. Davis was diagnosed with acute bronchitis complicated by malaria.[1] When he returned to New Orleans, Davis's doctor Stanford E. Chaille pronounced him too ill to travel. He was taken to the home of Charles Erasmus Fenner, the son-in-law of his friend J. M. Payne, where he was bedridden but stable for two weeks. He took a turn for the worse and died at 12:45 a.m. on Friday, December 6, 1889, in the presence of several friends and holding Varina's hand.[2]
suggested paragraph implemented . Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ a b Collins 2005, pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 652–654.

A thorough independent copyedit is needed; glad to see HF is taking it on, but it would be really good to get even more eyes on this and Andrew Jackson so all the trimming isn't left to one editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue created when editor inserted image of statue with grafitti to reflect current legacy. Gravesite statue of Davis removed to address concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Writings is bibliography of Davis work: 4 books and five articles, an autobiographical fragment, and collected writings. Links are provided for readers' convenience. External links is collection of internet sites provided by editors, some having have bits and pieces of Davis's writing. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be chronological. small change to collection to reflect this.
OCLC's added. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why does one Article list him as author, others not?
edit error...corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was due to citebot repeatedly putting the author back in. I think because this one article also has a jstor number. (It's the only one). Added blank last= and first=, which will hopefully address the problem. Diff here. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is a mixture of the way collections of his writings are handled, and it's not clear why they aren't all in External links. There are some in Articles, some in Collections, and others in External links. I can't decipher why they aren't all consolidated in External links.
    • Then a similar problem is found in External links; how are they organized? (Not alphabetical?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This bundled all the externals together, moved link to Rice sit where mentioned in Bibliography of Davis's writings. See [28] Wtfiv (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • HarvRef error: Davis, Jefferson (1881b). The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. Vol. II. D. Appleton. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDavis1881b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1881b removed; 1881a converted to 1881. See diff Wtfiv (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wtfiv is actively at work here, and the length has been trimmed significantly. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Arena (countermeasure) Edit

Notified: Catalan, MILHIST WikiProject, diff

Review section Edit

This article was in pretty poor shape a month ago when I first started working on it. There was: no picture of Arena (other than a somewhat dubious graphic), little mention of attempts to export Arena, and also an inaccurate statement that Arena is the successor to Drozd. I have resolved these problems somewhat. There is still: no information about why Arena has still not entered volume production, no comparison to the earlier Drozd or later Afganit, little information about the system's performance, and much missing history about the different variants and attempts to market Arena. User:Ottava Rima's comments at the article's FAC in 2008 still ring true: The article does not set up why there are two predacessors. It does not set up how they are connected. It just simply lists them, says some sort information on them, then abruptly declares that there was a new system. This is not enough background to even discuss the history of the item in question.

I may be able to bring this up to GA status at a later date. Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC it seems like no one has addressed Schierbecker's concerns about comprehensiveness above. Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, per Schierbecker's concerns. As they are one of the more knowledgeable editors currently active in this subject matter area, I trust their judgment on this one. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Jackson Edit

Notified: Display name 99, Cmguy777, Orser67, Elisfkc, Rjensen, WP Biography, WP Biography/Military, WP Biography/Politics and government, WP Military history, WP Tennessee, WP U.S. Congress, WP United States, WP District of Columbia, WP US Government, WP US Presidents, WP Politics, WP Politics/American politics, WP Indigenous peoples of North America, talk page notification 2022-08-22

Review section Edit

Pre-hold content

It has been a few weeks since I raised concerns at Talk:Andrew Jackson about the neutrality of the Andrew Jackson article. In my opinion, this article should not have been promoted to a featured article. Since I first raised concerns, there have been some improvements, but I believe that there is a lot of work left to be done before this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA. Overall, I think that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. Though one editor has been arguing that there is "no bias," many parts of this article are still heavily skewed in Jackson's favor. In particular:

  • Some of the language is misleadingly MOS:FLOWERY. For example:
    • As FloridaArmy has pointed out, Jackson is hailed as an advocate of the common man and the working class. This terminology is misleading because Jackson's policies were known to help the white working class in particular. The way it is currently written, it makes Jackson seem supportive of the working class in general. This is especially misleading because Jackson ruled over a country where slaves were common and made up a sizeable portion of the working class, and Jackson's policies were explicitly Andrew Jackson#Reaction to anti-slavery tracts pro-slavery. Indigenous people were also significantly more common before Jackson's ethnic cleansing, but they are also excluded from the common man. It seems that the main justification for this language is that it was "the language of Jackson's supporters,", but this strikes me as extremely biased to use this language without significantly more context.
    • As Cmguy777 has pointed out, Jackson is described as an advocate for democracy. The word "democracy" is fairly vague to begin with, and the way it is written makes it seem like Jackson advocated for democracy in general, when Jackson's ethnic cleansing was in fact extremely disruptive to the existing democracies in the region. It is misleading to describe Jackson as an advocate for democracy when in fact he was systematically replacing non-white democracies with white supremacist Jacksonian democracy. This needs to be clarified.
    • Conflicts tend to be described mostly using language from the U.S. perspective. Jackson won, he lost, he achieved a decisive victory or suffered a devastating defeat. I've made some changes particularly to the Andrew Jackson#Creek campaign and treaty section, but it still seems unbalanced; Creek victory is known as the Fort Mims massacre, while Jackson's victory is described by some historians ... as a massacre, or at least as having some characteristics of one.
    • As Deathlibrarian has pointed out, some language seems to dance around Jackson's ethnic cleansing, using the term "forced removal" to avoid directly mentioning Jackson's goals of extermination and racial homogeneity. This has been discussed at length at Talk:Andrew Jackson#RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead.
  • There is WP:UNDUE focus on Jackson's positive impact on white men. For example, in the lead paragraph, Jackson's pro-white-working-class and pro-Union actions are each mentioned twice, while his ethnic cleansing is only mentioned once. Every source that I have read about Jackson has mentioned his ethnic cleansing. It is what he is known for, more so than his pro-white-working-class stance.
  • As Hobomok has pointed out, the cited sources are unbalanced. Most cited by far is work by Robert Remini, mostly from the 1970s and 1980s. Historians Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton have described Remini as "Jackson's most thorough biographer and energetic champion." This article would benefit from a greater variety of sources, especially Indigenous authors, as they were some of the most affected by Jackson.
  • As ARoseWolf has pointed out, this article violates WP:WIKIVOICE by stating facts as opinions. Jackson's actions were ethnic cleansing. That's a fact, supported by lots of reliable sources. FinnV3 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The "Popular culture depictions" needs a heavy revise; its seems to be a trivia collection (you think for a such a figure as Jackson there would be a source which distills how he appears in movies, fictional literature, etc.) with some poor sources. With regards to the racial views, at a brief glance I think you're correct in that we could use newer sources, but on the whole I think the article represents this issue in a balanced fashion. There is a whole section devoted to his "Planting career and slavery" as well as "Reaction to anti-slavery tracts" and the whole "Indian removal policy" section. The Legacy section section also covers the contemporary shift towards a negative view of Jackson and his exclusionary actions. The lede itself is what needs work ("working class" is not even mentioned in the body text of the article). "Common man" is only mentioned once in the body of the article, I think the Legacy section could do a better job of describing how he became associated with that term
As for "Indian removal": it is simply the name of that historical policy/event. That does not mean it was not ethnic cleansing ("Holocaust" != "not a genocide of European Jews" because it doesn't say genocide). I have no objections to describing the Indian removal as an ethnic cleansing but of course, we should find a good RS which says such (preferably one which makes the direct connection to Jackson). Whether it is an "opinion" or a "fact" is a little more tricky. One or several scholars calling something a genocide/ethnic cleansing does not mean a consensus exists (my own experience) and thus cannot be treated as factual, so we should find a good RS which explicitly states there is a consensus (if one exists, I suspect so but do not know) that this was ethnic cleansing, then it can be treated as fact in Wikivoice. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Place on hold-As FA nominator and most frequent contributor. Before several weeks ago, when parts of the article were challenged and underwent revision, the article was not perfect but was mostly fine. The larger grievances are not justified and in my opinion largely motivated by POV rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say. Details can be found on the article talk page. I would rather FinnV3 waited for the discussion on the talk page to conclude to see if the issues would be resolved, but whatever. I want to ping some prominent contributors to the article to give them a chance to contribute here: Wehwalt, Hoppyh, Alanscottwalker. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase; please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Let's first get sorted whether the notification wait period was respected, and a reminder that FAR is not dispute resolution. Please stay focused on WP:WIAFA, provide sources, and keep arguments at article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hold the talk page notice (FAR instructions step 1) was placed yesterday, and it generated a lot of discussion. I think that conversation needs to be resolved there (to keep everything in one place) before an evaluation of the article's merits can happen here. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close This discussion is currently being handled at the article talk page, quite extensively. I did not realize the notice of problems was given only a week ago (isn't it standard that the FA criteria warning notice be given a week or two to be addressed before FAR is initiated?). This should be put off until things are resolved there (my points on the lede and the popular culture section still stand). I also advise caution to the OP, who has only really been an active editor for a month. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold for at least a month, to see if discussion is productive. Best I can tell, notification requirements were not followed. But ... a procedural close is not optimal, as it could record an inaccurate event in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, with a whopping 17,000+ of readable prose, I hope that the excess has been trimmed and better summarized (to around 10 to 13,000 words of readable prose) by the time this FAR resumes, else I'll be headed for a delist declaration regardless of the outcome of the other issues. The size alone warrants we continue this FAR once the RFC closes. It is not hard to see why the size is so inflated, by examining any section where one's eyes happen to fall ... here's a sample of an entire paragraph that could be summarized in less than half that amount of words:
    • The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson. He had ordered the dismissal of Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement. On May 6, 1833, Jackson sailed on USS Cygnet to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he was to lay the cornerstone on a monument near the grave of Mary Ball Washington, George Washington's mother. During a stopover near Alexandria, Randolph appeared and struck the president. He fled the scene chased by several members of Jackson's party, including the writer Washington Irving. Jackson declined to press charges.
    Skipping further down the page for random samples:
    • Jackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court. Most were undistinguished. His first appointee, John McLean, had been nominated in William T. Barry's place after Barry had agreed to become postmaster general. McLean "turned Whig and forever schemed to win" the presidency. His next two appointees —Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne —disagreed with Jackson on some points but were poorly regarded even by Jackson's enemies. In reward for his services, Jackson nominated Taney to the Court to fill a vacancy in January 1835, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval. Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, leaving two vacancies on the court. Jackson nominated Taney for Chief Justice and Philip P. Barbour for associate justice. Both were confirmed by the new Senate. Taney served as chief justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court. He was regarded with respect over the course of his career on the bench, but his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford largely overshadows his other accomplishments. On the last full day of his presidency, Jackson nominated John Catron, who was confirmed.
    Goes off-topic in quite a few ways. If Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling can be done at 8,000 words, this can surely be done in under 13,000. Or less. We'd have a much better shot at analyzing other issues if the size were reasonable. With this size, I am concerned that other problems may be lurking. I find it very odd that this FA, more than four years old, has never appeared as WP:TFA considering the severe shortage of suitable topics, where issues like this would have drawn broader attention and it makes me wonder if the TFA Coords avoided scheduling it because this problem is so apparent. Part of the art of writing is as much about what to leave out as what to include, and that art needs to be exercised here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tend to wait for presidential FAs to be nominated by the person who's put the work in, rather than grabbing them without a nomination. Can't speak for my fellow coordinators on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering also the amount of verbosity reduction that is needed, along with the POV issues under discussion at talk, a one-month hold is probably insufficient; two months might be required to bring the FAR back with the article in a state that others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps for a future time, but we could definitely spin some of this off to more dedicated articles, especially his military career, in the style of Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but spinning content off to reduce the size won't change the fact that the prose is just not tight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indy beetle and SandyGeorgia, I agree with you both about the length issues. The current dispute began about a month ago. Before then, the article was stable. It was already long, but the size was more manageable. Since then however, a group of editors has complained that the topics of Jackson's policies towards Indians and blacks has been underrepresented in the article. As a result, editors have been adding content to deal with that, and nothing has been taken out. The result is that the length has gotten a bit out of hand. I know that the article would benefit from trimming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is so charged right now that, if anyone dares to try to extract anything having to do with slavery or Native American issues, it could create a firestorm. I also may be a bit too attached to some parts of the article not dealing with racial matters that I wrote, and so I haven't been willing to touch those either. You're welcome to try to cut down on that or anything else that needs it. Regarding creating separate articles, I'm a amateur Jackson scholar, and creating separate articles about Jackson's early political career and his military career has been a long-term goal of mine. However, in order to do so, I felt that I needed to read more about Jackson than I already have, and my attempts to do that have been bogged down with delays. Maybe in the next year or two I can get started on that, but we'll see. That's a great long term goal, but for right now, I think that the focus has to be on trimming this article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Display name 99, don't be discouraged; J. K. Rowling appeared at FAR under very similar circumstances, and came out wonderfully. After many months. Ditto for Joan of Arc, laboring under serious sockpuppetry. At this point, probably the best thing to do is to keep the FAR from sprawling, and keep the bulk of discussion on article talk, with only summaries back to here of matters relative to WP:WIAFA. Should the Coords decide to put this on hold, as instructions weren't followed, that should allow you some time to work. Have a look at not only Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, but Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its five talk archives. And the Joan of ARC FAR. FAR is patient, and editors who come here seeking a speedy delist are disappointed and tend to quickly disappear; a collaborative spirit prevails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep with hold also making sense. I think the editor who nominated this is sadly POV pushing and not giving the process a chance to work. Outside of the question related to forced removal/ethnic cleansing this seems to be an editor upset that their preferred phrasing/emphasis hasn't been used. This is not a case where a previously FA was slowly degraded by many poor edits over a long period of time nor is this a case where a trove of new information is forcing us to update the article. This is an editor who is unhappy with long standing phrasing and is now demanding the article be changed to match their preferred terms/emphasis. All of this could/should be addressed on the talk page without delisting. Certainly no delisting should occur so long as talk page discussions and the RfC are underway and the outcome of the RfC also shouldn't result in a delisting regardless of how it is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 22:41, August 23, 2022 (UTC)
    Unsigned, please read the FAR instructions; it is a two-stage process, and keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also suggest that these discussions play out on the talk page. I don't think FAR is a substitute for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold, this appears to be an attempt to use FAR as dispute resolution. Hog Farm Talk 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also believe the discussions belong on the talk page, without the tags on the article. Hoppyh (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maintenance tags are a separate matter; they can't be removed until the issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold - As I stated on the article talk page, I believe the issues brought up there need to be addressed. If they are not addressed satisfactorily then I may agree with delisting but that's a big if. I appreciate the nominator for bringing up issues with this article but I disagree with the timing of this review. The discussion needs to be concluded on the article talk page first and this review should not be used as a form of dispute resolution or to force a speedy alteration to the article. There is no rush to do anything. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought I was following the protocol. It has been three weeks since I first raised some of these issues on the talk page, but little has changed, so the WP:FAR instructions (and a suggestion from Oncamera) made it seem like this was the logical next step. Maybe the WP:FAR instructions should be amended; is there some unwritten rule that articles with recent talk page activity are ineligible for FAR, or something similar? I'm not trying to cause problems. FinnV3 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold per Hog Farm. FAR is not dispute resolution and these issues are cropping up throughout the project on articles about presidents, with the same editors showing up. Take a look at George Washington and the associated talk pages/archives. Unfortunately editors with little to no understanding of producing and writing content, let alone featured content, tend to flock to the discussions. Best to resolve the issues on the talk page via a structured format. Even better, in my view, is to disengage and let the issues die out. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, this is not an attempt at dispute resolution. I believe that this article does not meet the featured article criteria. It has been more than three weeks since these concerns were first raised on the talk page, and they have not been addressed, so the WP:FAR instructions seem to indicate that this is an appropriate review. If everyone agrees that this article is ineligible for FAR, then I think the WP:FAR instructions should be amended to be clearer about this. FinnV3 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It doesn't seem the problem is with the instructions; the page was clearly notified per instructions on 22 August by someone who read the instructions. Please avoid filling this page with off-topic discussion: WT:FAR is where you would go to discuss the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The instructions say to attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article, which I have been doing since July. It says to give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review, which I did, and the issues have still not been addressed. Are you saying that there's an additional unwritten rule that articles are ineligible for FAR if the talk page has been active recently? Or that the attempts to resolve issues must explicitly mention "FAR" two to three weeks in advance? FinnV3 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have clearly said you should raise your questions at WT:FAR and not disrupt this page. @WP:FAR coordinators: might we get this premature FAR put on hold (per consensus above) to stop the unhelpful use of this page, while work continues on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no rule that articles with an active talk page cannot be brought to FAR. However, there are two intertwined issues that do impact whether this should be here right now. First off, the notification step is targeted to improvement rather than just starting a countdown timer. If you post a notification and get no response for two weeks, great, bring it here, but when there is an active response and efforts towards improvement (including an active RfC) then we want to provide an opportunity for things to get resolved there. Second, FAR is not dispute resolution - overlapping discussion here when there's already an RfC as well as a noticeboard thread in progress will confuse rather than improve matters. Let the RfC run, let the noticeboard thread run, address any behavioural concerns in a more appropriate venue, and then if issues remain relative to the FA criteria those can be dealt with at that time. For the moment this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist Considering that even the people above saying "Keep/Place On Hold" are all noting and largely agreeing with there being egregious issues with the article as it stands, along with major problems of bloat to the text and outdated sourcing, I see no reason why the article should remain listed as an FA. Trying to place a hold for months seems counter to the whole idea of this being FA quality as it stands. It should be delisted and, once all issues are fixed, it can be re-nominated. Otherwise, we risk the "one or two months" of waiting to instead be much longer with the improvements not being completed and the article not being in a proper FA-quality state that entire time frame. Delisting now and then re-nominating once everything is fixed seems like a much better option. SilverserenC 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Silverseren this FAR is already on hold; please don't add volume to an inactive page, and Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notifying all previous participants of this FAR (who haven't already re-engaged) that the article has been re-worked and the FAR is no longer on hold. @FinnV3, Wehwalt, Indy beetle, Hoppyh, Silver seren, Victoriaearle, ARoseWolf, Hog Farm, Springee, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC the article has been improved somewhat, but some of the issues identified have yet to be rectified, such as article length. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC or restore to last high quality version, preferably around here. The current version of this article is a massive downgrade over where the article stood several months ago before it was largely rewritten. In being reduced from over 15,000 words to just a hair over 12,000, the article has been gutted of much of its valuable content. 12,000 words is too small a size for an article of this importance. A little over 15,000 was close to ideal, and it should have been kept within that general range.
It is important to note what has been cut and what hasn't. The article, again, has been reduced from 15,000 words to 12,000, meaning that about one-fifth, or 20 percent, of the article's volume has been reduced. Yet the coverage of slavery is basically equal in volume as it was before. The section on Indian removal during Jackson's presidency prior to these revisions stood at 766 words. Not only has it not appreciably shrunk like most of the rest of the article, but it has grown to 798 words. Plus, there is a completely new 469 word section on Native American policy at the end of the article. So how is it, that when the article as a whole is cut by 20 percent, coverage of this subject matter not only is not trimmed like almost everything else but actually increases by quite a lot? I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors who made these revisions (although that is not the easiest thing to do given the environment at the article at the time, and the fact that a note that Jackson demonstrated concern for the care of his slaves and that the size of his slave quarters exceeded the standards of the time somehow got removed), but I cannot deny the impact that these changes have had in terms of creating a severe problem of WP:Undue weight, shifting coverage away from Jackson's important actions with regard to white Americans while unduly emphasizing aspects of his life and policies with regard to black and red people.
Even for those who disagree with my views about how racial issues should be treated in this article, and I know that there are plenty of people who do, I think that it should still be clear that the "Native American Policy" sub-section of the Legacy section is objectively terrible. It's mostly just needless repetition of stuff that's already discussed further up in the article. In a couple of cases, things are mentioned here which are not mentioned already (the Jackson Purchase and Jackson's justification of removal), but they should be mentioned earlier for the sake of maintaining a proper sense of chronology. Somebody could delete the whole four paragraph, 469 word section and nothing important would be lost that could not be summarized in a couple of sentences placed in appropriate points earlier in the article. I think it's ridiculous that people are saying that 12,000 words is too long, but if they seriously believe that, they need to start the trimming here.
The final short paragraph at the end of "Historical reputation" is completely unencyclopedic and needs to be entirely re-written.
Editors should vote to restore this article to where it was before recent changes ruined it or take the next step towards delisting this sad relic of something much better that came before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that the final short para at the end of Historical reputation is odd and unencyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are now three mentions of Native Americans in the lead; does the preponderance of reliable sources, and summmary of the article, justify this weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'm not sure if you're asking me, but I'll answer anyway. I'm fine with the lead. My issue is with coverage of Native American issues and slavery in the body. Whatever the reason, while the rest of the article was heavily shortened, coverage of these matters was not only not shortened but actually grew. The "Indian Removal Act" sub-section for Jackson's presidency is longer than any of the other sub-sections in the presidency section, and that's not including the special 469-word section on Native American issues in the Legacy section. The section on Jackson's war against the Creek Indians easily dwarfs all of the sub-sections on Jackson's presidency aside from the one on the Indian Removal Act. The Creek War is important, but it was one of many wars between the United States and Native Americans. That section has 924 words, whereas the section on the Nullification Crisis, which occurred during Jackson's presidency and probably marks the closest that the United States came to secession and civil war before the Civil War, has only 664 words. That's unacceptable. Plus there's still a 493-word section on Jackson's war with the Seminoles, which appears basically unchanged in size from before the revisions. I think it's clear that the article is heavily slanted towards coverage of Indian affairs in a way that damages its reliability.
The easiest thing to fix is the "Native American Policy" sub-section in the article. Like I said, it's mostly just needless repetition. I disagree heavily, of course, with your belief that the article is too long, but if you want to shorten it, here is what I recommend. Go to that section. Take the sentence about the Jackson Purchase and move it to the start of the "First Seminole War" section. Then take the sentence about Jackson's justification for Indian removal and move it to the section on Indian removal in his presidency. Condense into a short summary the historians' views of the matter and move them into "Historical reputation." Then delete the rest of the section. You'll save probably about 300 words of repetitive and overly detailed text. Display name 99 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MY question was directly about the preponderance of sources. Confining your answers to discussion of sources, and keeping them brief, is helpful at FAR. There is zero discussion of sources in your very long response, which is mostly opinion, which renders it not helpful for FAR purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article could still benefit from trimming and verbosity reduction. Here is but one example:

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813.[85] A faction of Muscogee (Creek) known as the "Red Sticks" had broken away from the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, which wanted to maintain peace with the United States. The Red Sticks, led by William Weatherford (also called Red Eagle) and Peter McQueen, had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States.[80][86][87] Earlier in the summer, a party of Red Sticks had gone to Pensacola to pick up supplies from the Spanish.[88] During their return, they defeated an ambush at Burnt Corn Creek by American militia.[89][90] On August 30, the Red Sticks avenged the ambush by attacking Fort Mims, a stockade inhabited by both white Americans and their Creek allies. They killed about 250 militia men and civilians.[91][92] The attack became known as the Fort Mims massacre.[93][94]

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

The article retells too much history (and this happens repeatedly); there is an article for Fort Mims Massacre, and we don't need all the background detail. A trim is still needed throughout.

"Known as" is used twice in the sample para above, and nine times throughout; it is often redundant. For example, the entire para above could be reduced to something like (this can be improved upon, but just a sample idea that it can be done in two sentences) ...

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre. The Red Sticks, a confederate faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

Sample only, cuts the words in half. Getting this article to a reasonable size is doable, if the weight and neutrality issues can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this be moved from Writings to External links?

  • "Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson's documents.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress is being made so I am not ready to declare move to FARC; Wtfiv has proven capable of working through disputes in the past, so we can give this more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress update based on FAR and Talk comments:

  • Ft Mims example shortened as per suggestion in FAR.
  • Seminole War section shortened to remove back story as per Ft. Mims example.
  • Native American Policy removed as per FAR suggestion. Treaties moved to text, final paragraph shortened and moved to other section of legacy.
  • Andrew Jackson papers moved to external links as per FAR suggestion.
  • Sections on Jacksonian democracy removed as per discussion on talk page. Some points reworded. Legacy reordered, awaiting reworking by another editor.
  • Final mention of issues related to Native Americans in the lead reduced to two. One in first paragraph of lead on general view; second specifically addressing the Indian Removal Act.

Current length of main body is 11603 words. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6 Feb 2023 Progress update: Still awaiting a possible further update of legacy from an editor. Otherwise, the article is unchanged. Currently, many of the first FAR concerns have been addressed (e.g., issues raised by FinnV3 addressed, attempts to address points from second iteraction of FAR editors, article length reduced by 4000 words; but is still 11.6K words long.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One new change from previous iteration: Clause and source added back in mentioning in legacy that the Indian Removal Act has been discussed in the context of genocide. Wtfiv (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11 Feb 2023 Progress update: Legacy reworked, as editor proposing to rewrite hasn't responded. Recent changes have attempted to address concerns. Minor trimming, article reduced by about 300 words, presently 11.3K words of main text. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wtfiv , any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria. I think most of the concerns in talk and listed above have been addressed. Another editor was going to rework the legacy section, but hasn't been able to. But, I reworked it based on comments on the article's talk page. I'm not sure if article length remains a concern. It has been significantly reduced in length. The article length was reduced by 3K words a few months back, and it was shortened another 1.1k words after the FAR was reinstated. The article length is now 11.3K words, which is longer than 10k words. But out of the 16 presidential articles that are FA, only four are shorter (Cleveland, Arthur, Hayes, and College). Wtfiv (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The length is no longer disastrous (those other presidents are :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What issues remain unaddressed here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not aware of any at this point. I think the length issue, which had been a concern that is now acceptable. I think the other concerns have been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buidhe and SandyGeorgia:? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well I wouldn't support this article at FAC but if others want to close the FAR at this point, I would not object to that either. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What specifically is still problematic, in your view? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Duplicate, from Jefferson Davis FAR: same issue). This article needs a copyedit for prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity; it wouldn't get out of FAC like this, and we should do more than patch up articles when they clear FAR. Wtfiv does an excellent job of reflecting sources and hewing to them, but unfortunately, with this excessively long article, people give up on the ce phase, and documenting the remaining ce needs takes SOOOOO much time because of the article size. I'll put together some examples this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SandyGeorgia, when you say that it would not make it out of FAC right now, I believe that you're simply wrong. It's 10,900 words at the moment. We literally just had another featured article on a similar topic, James Madison, get promoted at over 11,300 words. So I don't know what your basing this assessment off of. Can you please explain? You previously rebuked me for resisting your efforts to shorten the article, and you (inaccurately, in my view) described my approach as "my way or the high way." Does collaborating and compromise work only one way or two ways? I am asking because the article size has decreased by over a third since it was first nominated for FAR, and the fact that, after all of that, you're still demanding more cutting is precisely indicative to me of a "my way or the high way" approach. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you can rest assured I am not basing my assessment on two things: 1) what currently comes out of FAC (where reviews and number of reviewers of late are limited), and 2) how many words there are. As I stated, the issues are a need for "prose tightening, offtopic and verbosity". Those can be issues with 2,000 words just as they can with 11,300 words; the word count is not the (most) relevant problem here; the writing is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your first point makes no sense because, in saying that it wouldn't pass FAC where it is now, you are making a judgment about the standards of articles that are passed there. I won't argue with you on the rest. Virtually none of the writing left in the article is mine anyway. Display name 99 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are probably right; what gets out of FAC these days actually has no bearing on anything at FAR or this discussion. So to rephrase what I clumsily did not say adequately-- my point is that long articles don't get the coyedit attention they should, sometimes precisely because of the length and the time it takes to get through them (several have given up on the two at FAR for that reason), and while we're here at FAR (where we do pay attention to prose standards) we should try to make sure that is done whether there are 2,000 or 11,000 words. I realize I still need to provide examples, but to do so, I need a long clear block of time at a real (not iPad) computer. As I've said: Wtfiv pays close attention to sources and hews well to them, but has frequently asked that others help copyedit, and that hasn't yet happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The shocking truth about Wikipedia’s Holocaust disinformation

This problem is not unique to Wikipedia’s treatment of the Holocaust. A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia’s articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence. The Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson, plagued by such manipulations, attracts thousands of readers a day.

@Carlstak, ARoseWolf, and Jr8825: for comment (take note of WP:HJP). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a very serious subject. I'm still reading the full scholarly article co-authored by Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein. I think that is what has stirred ArbCom to action. Regarding WP:HJP, it appears from a cursory reading of the discussion that Levivich has been treated most unjustly. I can't read every word—I assume that most of the people who are active in these long-winded conversations and post those walls of text don't have jobs, how else do they find the time? ;-) I'm old but I still go out into the world every day and do stuff, so that leaves me only so much time for WP.
Shira Klein writes in the Forward article, dated June 14, 2023, only three days ago: "A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia's articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence." She uses the present tense, but does not point to any problematic passages. I don't see such a disinformation campaign taking place in the Andrew Jackson article; rather, it seems to have improved its coverage of Native suffering at the hands of white invaders. I certainly think it could still be improved, but it's made great progress since the iterations written mostly by an editor who expounds on talk pages about "globalists", bringing the mindset that such a worldview entails, which is generally not friendly to Jews, and by extension, to non-white people such as my Cherokee ancestors. Carlstak (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Carlstak has stated, this is a very serious subject. I'm not going to go into details about my ancestral connection to the Removal because it is irrelevant to the facts and though I am very prideful of my roots I do not parade it like a badge that can be used to pound others into submission. The facts will eventually win the day. I believe the article has made great strides. I can appreciate the hard work that has went into getting the article where it is, currently. Factually it is more improved than it was before. Is it perfect? No. But life isn't perfect either and I think the article stands as a representation of creating something more perfect that might eventually reach that mark. This will forever be the struggle between a slow moving and deliberate tertiary source like Wikipedia is and the day-by-day, minute-by-minute changing landscape of social activism. "She uses the present tense, but does not point to any problematic passages." This says it all. If you have an issue with the article then there is a talk page where discussions are ongoing about ways to improve the article. Maybe come there and have an honest and open discussion rather than simple throwing around accusations with no evidence to support your viewpoint.
I will leave the Holocaust discussions for others but I will say that I trust this community and our processes. I do believe the goal is to improve articles with reliable sourcing as it becomes available while defending them against vandalism and good faith disruptive editing that runs contrary to policy. Despite this seemingly perpetual struggle I believe we are doing that very thing. --ARoseWolf 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Forward article references this February Slate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:FinnV3 is no longer editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's where the the Slate article was discussed on the Andrew Jackson talk page. An edit attempting to address concern in Slate article is here (with citation). Wtfiv (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There have been some expressed concerns about the article, but to date specific concerns have been addressed. I'm not sure if length (11354 words) remains a concern or is considered reasonable compared to other American presidents. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harriet Arbuthnot Edit

Notified: ALoan (has not edited since 2007?), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject London, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-07-02

Review section Edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, very long and very short sections, dubious sources that need to be checked, and additional sources that I posted on the talk page that might be included in the article. There was no response or edits to the article when I posted the notice on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Came here from OTD (have scheduled this as a death on August 2). The list of comments is pretty large, such that it's unsurprising nobody responded to them all in three weeks. I've consolidated the death and legacy, which also shortens the relationship section. Most of the sources look fine at a glance; #29 is dead, so hard to see what's going on with it, but I imagine the fairly basic material it supports could be re-cited somewhere or other? (It's also obviously true from the photo.)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so can't speak for the additional sources or cn tags. One of the tags is in the middle of a paragraph, which is a red flag for tagbombing; the other is at the end of one. A lot of FAs of this era are a little bit loose with inline cites but, upon trivial investigation, are 'solved' just by reproducing a cite from earlier in the paragraph that covers the whole thing. I agree it does intuitively look like there could be more added to the legacy. Is there any particular reason you think the additional books might have more info? As noted in the original FAC, it doesn't seem very much was ever written on her, and it's not like history as a field is currently being poured infinite amounts of funding to write all-new analyses of all-new information. Vaticidalprophet 10:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: I think your question refers to the sources that I placed on the talk page of the article. This was a sample of sources (with I think more than a passing mention of Arbuthnot) that I found after a quick search, which causes me to wonder if the article is still comprehensive. When I posted my message on talk, I was hoping that someone would offer to take a look for sources and add to the article. Is anyone willing to ensure that this article is still comprehensive? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not exactly my area, but it's not exactly not my area either; I will try to have a look at the sources you mention on the talkpage soon. I am concerned with some of the sourcing currently present in the article: for instance the following does not seem to be explicitly supported by the cited source: "Marriage to such a pillar of the establishment as Charles Arbuthnot opened all doors to his young new wife, who, as one of the 14 children of a younger son of an aristocratic family possessed of no great fortune, would otherwise have been on the periphery of the highest society. However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight." Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no edits since 2 August, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC progress has stalled and concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baden-Powell House Edit

Notified: Rafmarham, Wimvandorst WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Scouting

Review section Edit

Posted notes in 2021, issues remain.

  • The house was sold in 2020, and while the clearly out-of-date elements in the text have been addressed, there's some text that remains in question (is the layout the same after conversion?)
  • More at issue is the sourcing. While some of the issues have been addressed, there's still a number of clearly unreferenced statements throughout (aforementioned layout section is unreferenced entirely, for instance.) The sources that are used are inconsistently formatted, and I'm not sure are high-quality.
    • There's also the question of the foundational sourcing being mostly to primary sources: The Official History of Scouting, annual reports from the Scouting Association, an apparently self-published Gilwell Park and the White House: A brief history and guided tours, or The story of B.-P.'s House, also by the Scouting Association. Based on what's presented, I'm not entirely sure that the house meets notability standards, let alone FA standards. Quick Google Books searches only brought up capsule-style mentions in guidebooks and the like which might count as reliable sources but don't really provide enough context to support a lot of the primary information.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I almost FAR'd this myself back in July but decided to wait. The out-of-date content, while abated to some degree, is not actually fully resolved. The ""Baden-Powell House" (PDF). Scoutbase Fact Sheet. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 17 May 2015." source actually indicates that it is from 1999, and this source is used to support the following content:
" At its peak, it saw on average 30,000 people spending the night and 100,000 meals served in the restaurant." - we're citing a peak figure to something from only two years after the remodel when the thing was still in use for 20 years and the underlying source indicates those figures as a current number (as of 1999), not a past peak
And of course, a 1999 source doesn't (and can't) support "Since its inception, Baden-Powell House provided a hostel for people visiting London and since 2001 this became the main focus of the building."
And "In the period 2004–2006 the hostel participated in the Youth Hostel Association, after which the Scout Association entered into an agreement with German company Meininger Hotels with Scout members from the UK and abroad being able to stay at a reduced rate" is in a paragraph with only that 1999 Scoutbase Fact Sheet cited and unsurprisingly, the 1999 source fails to support content about the 2004-2006 period and the events afterwards.
This article needs more sourcing work than would appear from a first glance. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist - some editing occurred, but the primary issues remain. Hog Farm Talk 03:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proteasome Edit

Notified: Opabinia regalis, Vital Articles Level 5, WikiProject Molecular Biology 2023-07-17

Review section Edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are many unreferenced passages. The article also needs to be updated with more recent sources: there are some sections like "Clinical significance" which talk about medical information, and this should be updated with the most recent literature to ensure that the information is still reflects the consensus of the medical research community. Z1720 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist: Sourcing concerns remain, no edits since August. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Olm Edit

Notified: Yerpo, BORIS BL~enwiki, Leo Breman, RN1970, Susmuffin, Sheep81, Tone, WP Amphibians and Reptiles, WP Bosnia and Herzegovina, WP Slovenia, WP Croatia, noticed in May 2023

Review section Edit

This older featured article contains extensive uncited text in the conservation section and also needs a review for out of date content. For instance, the article references "the most recent assessment in 2008" when a 2022 assessment has since been released, and the range map has significant differences from the most recent map provided by IUCN. Also possible sourcing issues such as "After joining the European Union in 2004, Slovenia had to establish mechanisms for protection of the species included in the EU Habitats Directive." being cited to a document from 2002. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP has added more content to the article, but not all of it is sourced. Diannaa has removed some of it as a copyright violation, although other added content by the IP such as the unsourced bit beginning with "»At the EU level, Olm the blind cave salamander" send off vibes of being copy and pasted from somewhere to me, with the chevrons and other unusual formatting in there (like the unintentional line break). Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it all looks sketchy. It should likely come out, just in case. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment: I improved referencing and updated the assessment. The map is now equipped with a note until a more precise map can be drawn by someone who knows how to do it (the marked area still shows the maximum extent of the olm's native range). The recently added text by an IP editor was largely just repeating what was already stated, and was mostly removed. This could have been the olm researcher Dr Boris Bulog who already collaborated with me on writing the originally expanded article. He may have copied some of his existing work, which would explain odd markup; I'll try to sort it out if he contacts me again, and see if there's anything useful. — Yerpo Eh? 09:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: the uncited statements have been mostly resolved. However, the "Conservation" section is very disorganised and there are some MOS:TODAY issues. I am unsure of the quality of the sources because I am not an expert in this area, so I will not comment on if the new sources are valid. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attalus I Edit

Notified: Sj, Paul August, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Olympics, 2022-03-01

Review section Edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by editors on the talk page, the article over-relies upon ancient sources instead of scholarly, secondary sources. Z1720 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I largely agree that the reliance on the primary sources is too much. It doesn't seem to meet criterion 1(c)'s thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Ifly6 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns on the talk page were certainly accurate, but I don't have the sources I had access to a year ago and I'm busy with Genghis in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article primarily relies on Hansen 1971, although many other secondary sources are also used. While one might argue that there is an over reliance on Hansen, I don't see an over reliance on primary sources, since most cites to primary sources, are supported by secondary sources. To make this more clear, one improvement might be to move the cites to primary sources after the cites to the secondary ones. As for whether the article reflects a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", one wouldn't know unless one has done such a survey. I did attempt to do such a survey when I first wrote this article, but I haven't attempted such a survey recently and don't have the time (or inclination) to do so now. However, although I would be very surprised if additional sources could not be found which would improve the article, I would also be surprised if any very significant improvements to the article would result from a new literature search. Paul August 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a quick look at the article, I'm not seeing any inappropriate use of primary sources where a claim doesn't also have a secondary source backing it up. As for more modern literature, it's not exactly my area but a quick search turns up Noah Kaye (2023), The Attalids of Pergamon and Anatolia and Peter Thonemann (2013), Attalid Asia Minor on the Attalids in general, and Tomasz Grabowski (2018), "Diplomacy of Attalus I in Asia Minor", all of which may be of use. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consulting such sources as these would undoubtedly improve the article. Paul August 01:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, after a brief look at these three sources, I don't think they are going to be particularly useful. The first two are books that do not seem to say anything particularly important with respect to Attalus I himself, having much more to do with the Attalids which came after him. And the third, while exclusively focused on Attalus I (although it doesn't inspire confidence that the abstract mistakenly starts out "Attalus III ..."), is a paper on a topic too narrow and specialized to have much (if any) place in this article. Paul August 02:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Buidhe, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: could you provide specific examples of what sources you believe are missing or what text is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not involved in this FAR at all... (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Buidhe: Although you did say in March 2022 that "The article has overreliance on ancient sources". Do you still think that? And if so could you give some examples? Thanks. Paul August 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see any reference to Attalid propaganda in the article at all. I do not believe I am misremembering that a corpus on the topic exists, nor that it takes a central role in modern analyses. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haven't commented in a FAR for quite a while so please inform me if there's some sort of established practice that I've missed out. I don't see the point of specifying contemporary primary sources over and over in the same refs as secondary sources. In any quality article on history, primary sources should never used exclusively for anything other than maybe direct quotes, historiographical details or perhaps to jazz up the prose with some "flavor".

Primary sources already stated in the referenced secondary sources should be removed from the refs. Otherwise, it implies that we as Wikipedia editors are equally qualified to interpret the primary sources as the secondary sources. It's a bit too close to WP:OR for comfort.

Peter Isotalo 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC No edits have been made to update the sources to more recent and scholarly ones, and it seems like the "Sources" section has duplicates of older sources listed. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see what the issue with this article is. Expert research on ancient history topics very often proceeds slowly: it is not unusual for the latest work on a given topic to be 30, 50 or even 100 years old. (Work might go faster were Classical History -- as well as other topics in the Liberal Arts -- considered a priority & funded adequately. In my research, I've noticed a clear drop-off on publications in Classics since the 1980s.) Moreover, the latest trends in research in this area are to emphasize either social topics (e.g. "Class relations as reflected in Antonine Coinage") or the implementation of technology in this field (e.g. "Computer reconstruction of Latin inscriptions"). Biographies on notable figures -- either in book or article form -- have been scarce, & have been growing more so as time goes on.

As for use of primary sources, I'm concerned about this repeated objection to them. They need to be included so that our readers can find the information more easily: Wikipedia articles ought to be starting places for research, not the end of it. By

So unless the nominator can point to some important publication that has been overlooked in this article, this review ought to be closed. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delist. Over reliant on Hansen and primary sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gog the Mild FAR is a two-step process; keep or delist are not declared in the FAR (Featured article review) phase. The options at this stage are Move to FARC (Featured article removal candidate) or Close w/o FARC or Hold in FAR for ongoing work. We try to allow every opportunity for article improvement before we delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm still unconvinced by the case against this article. Maybe there are more modern sources that need using, but nobody has been able to point to any specifically. I suggested what looked like the most relevant ones and Paul August assessed them and apparently did not find that they added anything to the article. Does anyone who thinks this article is still not up to FA standards either 1. think that there is relevant content in the sources I suggested that should be added to the article, or 2. have any further suggestions of sources which haven't been used which should have been? I'm with Llywrch here: it's all very well to say "no improvements; move to FARC" but I am not seeing any actionable suggestions for things which actually need to be done to bring the article up to standard. The closest to that is AirshipJungleman29's suggestion that there ought to be scholarship on Attalus I's propaganda. This isn't my field, but it looks as though AB Bosworth's The legacy of Alexander: politics, warfare, and propaganda under the successors may have something relevant, though I don't have access. And on the other side of the coin, does Paul August agree that there's anything to be said about Attalus I and propaganda which is missing from the article as it stands? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I forgot to mention that I had a look a the sources and found—well, not as much as I initially recollected, but still a significant amount on propaganda in esp. Kosmetatou. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know that there is much worth adding to our article regarding Attalus' state/dynastic propaganda, but then the hardest thing for a non-expert to judge is completeness, and I'm no expert in this field. However Kosmetatou's article (unavailble when I made my contributions here) would be well worth looking at, if for nothing else than to provide more modern sourcing. And yes her article does touch on Attalid state/dynastic propaganda, but I don't know how much of it would apply to Attalus I. Paul August 18:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: File:Mediterranean at 218 BC-en.svg doesn't seem to be based on a high quality RS. It cites File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN.jpg as its source but this file only cites this image now unavailable on the personal website of a PhD student at UMich. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regardless of the source it's based on, it looks like an accurate depiction of Asia Minor to me.
Yes it may be accurate but it needs to be sourced for FA. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Quite coincidentally, I've been looking at the Kingdom of Pergamon article and associated articles, and had no idea this was at FAR. I'm not a Classicist, but for what it's worth, Pergamon is not a topic that is all that closely covered just because the sources are pretty patchy. Having read it at the library just recently... Hansen's book is a bit dated, yes, but it's still to my knowledge the only full-length book treatment of Pergamon and the Attalids as a whole, and still the starting place of research and a detailed discussion of every little scrap we know about the period. It's in need of an update for the latest archaeological discoveries and some more modern skepticism of the ancient sources (Hansen is very nodding along with "yes, barbarians are super evil, Attalus is super noble, except he worked with the evil evil Gauls briefly toward the end of his reign despite them all being evil wretches"... which is the slant of the sources, yes, but we don't need to echo Roman prejudice.), but that update has not been published yet. Kosmetatou is very good and should probably be preferred over Hansen whenever they differ, but it's also much shorter and more of an overview than Hansen's in-depth treatment. Basically, heavy reliance on Hansen isn't really a problem here IMO.
    • On propaganda: I think a treatment of Attalid propaganda is good and have added some of it to the Kingdom of Pergamon article and stuff like Pergamus, buuuuut I'm not 100% sure how related it is to an Attalus I article. It's hard to know how much of later propaganda was him personally. The one thing we do know is that he hyped his alleged victory over the Galatians to the moon, but that's already in the article. Other stuff, like the Attalids as protectors of Greek city state freedoms, is harder to attribute to any specific ruler and probably better for the overarching article on the dynasty. And the family stuff - this is sourced, Kosmetatou agrees that the Attalids building a drama-free reputation of boring, good people who didn't fight each other was good for their reputation.
    • My main complaint about the article is one of tone. The idea that Attalus was a capable general and whatnot are just wild conjecture. The sad fact is we don't know for sure, although he certainly portrayed himself as one, and to be clear Hansen 1971 herself buys into this so it's more "dated" than "wrong." But if we're judging people on just breadth of kingdom, it's worth mentioning that Attalid authority outside Pergamum had basically collapsed by the end of Attalus's rule, which is a weird omission. All of those loose "conquests" (really more like "closest influence") in Asia Minor from the Seleucids were busy going into reverse at max speed in 198-197 BCE. I'll try and take a look at the article later, but this seems like it is still solidly FA-material, just needs some minor tone adjustments. SnowFire (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that assessment is probably accurate. Kosmetatou should be preferred in-text when possible, and when not possible the tone should be corrected to something less hagiographical. Aside from that, if SnowFire is correct about the lack of in-depth updates, I think that the article would just about meet FA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section Edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I'll look into this tomorrow - I already had Hansen on hold at the library before I noticed this FAR, and will try to update with any conflicts with Kosmetatou (and possibly R. E. Allen's "The Attalid Kingdom" as well). SnowFire (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Okay, I'm a little less impressed with the article now, when diving in. It's... mostly fine... but this isn't Hansen's fault, it's the article writer, as a lot of "may have beens" upgraded into pure fact somehow. Hansen writes that the idea of Antiochis being a Seleucid noble sent over as a marriage is a "may have been", but somehow that became a statement. Kosmetatu outright says that Attalid support in the First Macedonian War was "ineffective" but somehow this became "a capable and courageous general" playing a "significant role" in the war. Hansen outright writes that the whole oracle story is surely bogus, but nary a hint of that before. Anyway the point is that I still think Hansen is a good source, just stuff sourced to Hansen doesn't always actually reflect her 100%, but that was on the WP editor not Hansen. (Not, like, made up, but there's definitely a pro-Attalus slant here.) SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've gone over the whole article. It is indeed very dependent on Hansen, but as noted above, I don't think that's a total disqualifier. If I was trying to pass this from scratch at FAC, then reading 10 books on other topics for the passing mentions of Attalus in them would be nice, but meh. Hansen is really the best we have for a deep dive on the Attalid rulers specifically (although, per other biographies of other ancient rulers, sometimes it ends up really being a history of the state & wars the person was involved in, rather than the person directly). Anyway, I was largely using the sources Hansen, Kosmetatou, Allen, Green, & Gruen for reference, along with some of the passing mentions. (Which could probably be removed, honestly, I'm not sure passing one-page mentions in general topic encyclopedias are THAT relevant.) I think the article should largely check out with those sources now and some citation drift has been removed. SnowFire (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Z1720: Are your concerns met? I've left the ancient sources in the citations since they were already there, but they are there strictly as an "FYI", and I've pushed them to the end of the cite to emphasize that the real source is the secondary source. The only things left exclusively sourced to primary sources are when the article quotes said sources. SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the overreliance of Hansen, but when other sources are not available we have to use what we have. WP:LIBRARY didn't seem to have anything that could be added, and if no one can find additional sources then I'm content with a keep. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep if Z1720 is satisfied. I'll keep an eye out if I can find more non-Hansen sources in the long term to add to this article and the larger Kingdom of Pergamon article - although do note that lots of the citations merely include Hansen as one of many. SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward III of England Edit

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-02

Review section Edit

This 2006 Featured article was nominated by an editor who has not edited since 2018 (User:Eixo --> Lampman). It was noticed of several deficiencies in January 2023; not all of those issues have been indicated on talk as having been addressed, and there are other items that should be checked. Prose and sourcing need review, there may be unaddressed items on talk, there is uncited text and clutter at the bottom of the article including collapsed family trees, vague text, extraneous detail and dated sourcing that has not been addressed. Considering the change in standards since 2006, a top-to-bottom review should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for this, Sandy. I've access to the most recent scholarship—we shouldn't need to go back much further than 30 or 40 years, I imagine—so can get involved here. I'd also recommend shortened footnotes for an article this size, which I agree, per the TP, certainly needs trimming. SN54129 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you are planning to rewrite, I would support a citation style change to sfns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I think a rewrite's probably in order; Gog's list of problems is too severe just to be resolved by tinkering. SN54129 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you planning to undertake a rewrite then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I could; as Gog says below, it would probably be quicker! Or does that cause problems for FAR? SN54129 16:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nope, works fine; just keep the page posted on your timing and progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, if the article were rewritten we would want the new version to go through FAC again. It may be neater to demote it here, rewrite it and then renominate; or was that what you had in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gog, that's not how the FA process works. Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO a well-attended FAR can give the same level or better for cleanup as a FAC can (see the recent-ish FARs for climate change and J. K. Rowling, which were able to get levels of attention that would have been difficult at FAC). I personally don't see a reason to automatically send this back to FAC if it can get a high-quality review from multiple editors here, although obviously there are situations that would require a delist and then back at FAC some time down the road if it ever gets worked back up. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is probably the worst FA I have ever looked at in detail. Among the numerous other issues, one which stands out for me is the high proportion of the small number of sources I checked which did not, even remotely, support the text. I ended up not trusting any of them and unsurprised that it never formally passed FAC. Among the many other things needed, if this were to be saved, every cite would need confirming, and given that most are to aging sources I am unsure why anyone would bother. It could be rewritten from scratch in less time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Dudley Miles kindly labeled me as the best person for this job, so I thought I would stop by for a look. Unfortunately I am quite swamped with school this month, so I will not be assisting with this FAR at this time. I actually think it needs to be delisted and completely rewritten. It’s current state is far from comprehensive, considering the subject matter. If it is delisted, I will gladly give it a complete overhaul this summer. That would give us the chance to take it through GA and ACR to make sure the article is appropriate for those who have a more complex understanding of English history. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unlimitedlead, articles can be rewritten during a FAR without being delisted; there is no time limit, along as work is progressing in the right direction. After at least a two-week wait period in FAR, the options here are to enter declarations like "move to FARC", or "hold in FAR, work progressing". If articles are moved to FARC, then whether to delist or keep is based on consensus of reviewers. You can jump in to help in the rewrite at any stage; for most rewrites, it is more typical for work to proceed on the article talk page, with more-or-less bi-weekly updates to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, ongoing work can take the form of building a completely new article in a sandbox, correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct; J. K. Rowling would be an example of a complete rewrite on talk (there are many, many others). Just keep the page posted on progress, keep work coordinated by letting others know where the work is happening, and when ready for a full independent review relative to WP:WIAFA, then others can be pinged in for a look. There's no time limit, and FAR Coords are patient as long as work is headed in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More than happy to leave these broader articles open for an extended period to get it right Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: Serial Number 54129 has been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks <grumble, grumble&