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 removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

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

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

Ironclad warshipEdit

Notified: [1], 7 July 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited text, accuracy and coverage issues as raised by Hog Farm about 2 months ago. There has not been an effort to resolve the concerns. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging Parsecboy and Sturmvogel_66, who have produced good/featured topics on groups of ironclads. I can help with the ACW stuff, but as the work here is going to overlap with that of Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1, this probably should have waited until after then. Hog Farm Talk 12:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hello all. A few comments from me.
    Yes, it clearly needs to be reviewed - the level of referencing in the original FA version (getting on for 15 years ago!) probably is not quite up to today's standards, and material that's been added since is rather less referenced. I would also like to take another look Hill's "War at Sea in the Ironclad Age" as from memory I'm not really sure it's a strong enough source, if I'm right about that we should replace it as far as we can.
    Regarding the American Civil War, I am sure there is some material that can be added, but I am also a bit cautious about adding too much material. For instance, doubtless many engagements involving monitors could be listed, but should they? How much content tells the story of the ironclad, rather than telling the story of the war?
  • I'm happy to get involved in bringing the article up to scratch, though not able to commit myself as much to it as I did to the creation of the original FA. (Also, I'm away for a bit over a week from now). The Land (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @The Land: - Will post more tomorrow (had a very long and hectic day at work and need to get my brain unfrazzled before trying to write intelligently) but I do generally agree that we don't need to add really a whole lot more of information for the Civil War, but just sorta refocus what we have. Some quick-hitter thoughts on this section:
      • Article talks later about ramming as an effective assault against ironclads being believed because of the war, but this is never established
      • I think we get into excessive details in a couple places: do we need to be naming the ships at Charleston, and we certainly don't need to be naming the Confederate non-ironclad gunboats at Mobile Bay
      • "The Confederacy built ships designed as smaller versions of Virginia" - Need to consult Saxon Bisbee's recent work on Confederate ironclads again, but I think this is a bit of an over-simplification, since the later Confederate ironclads were generally purpose-built unlike Virginia and there were a variety of hull types, including several with a sorta diamond-shaped hull that didn't really work.
      • " the two ironclads repeatedly tried to ram one another" - unsure of accuracy of this statement, but will go consult a couple relevant sources tonight.
        • Per a skim of the relevant chapter of William C. Davis (historian)'s book on Hampton Roads, Virginia/Merrimack made one ramming attempt but that was it for intentional ramming tries although they did bump into each other several times (although this is implied to be from close-quarters firing). I'm extremely dubious given the construction of Monitor that it ever would have considered ramming anything. Hog Farm Talk 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Will re-engage here soon. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I've added some material about ramming onto the talk page - hopefully that takes us forwards. The Land (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a significant bias toward the British, French, and US navies (with some coverage given to Italy at Austria, mainly focused on Lissa) that needs to be balanced out. There were significant ironclad fleets in a number of other countries that should be mentioned (I find it quite strange the First Sino-Japanese War isn't even mentioned, for instance). I can do some work to bring some broader coverage, but it may take some time for me to get there.
  • There are some flagrantly incorrect statements that need to be sorted out - a good example is "by the early 1880s widespread concern about the threat from France and Germany culminated in the Naval Defence Act". No, the NDA was directed against France and Russia. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Emperor NortonEdit

Notified: Johnlumea, Manning Bartlett, Nishkid64, Paul.h, User talk:Nunh-huh, WP Bio, WP USA, WP California, WP Micronations, noticed in February 202

This older featured article contains significant uncited text, and discussion on talk has raised concerns about the quality of some of the sources (more details there). Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This would need a lot of work to bring back up to standard, I'm afraid. The main problem is indeed the sourcing: there's a very heavy reliance on marginal and even downright unreliable sources (blog posts, historical newspapers, genealogy sites, YouTube videos, etc.) at the expense of the higher-quality books listed in the references section. I'm not sure the star can be saved without a top-to-bottom rewrite, unfortunately. That said, this article gets a decent number of readers, so it'd sure be nice to get it fixed up. I'd be willing to do what I can, although my hands are tied since I don't have access to some of the key sources (e.g. Lane 1939 and Kramer 1974). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
"Downright unreliable sources" like contemporaneous "historical newspapers" found on "genealogy sites"? Oh, dear. We're not off to a very good start, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlumea (talkcontribs) 01:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Historical newspapers and the like aren't downright unreliable, but they are primary sources, which under our policies should be used pretty sparingly. Featured articles need to rely on "high-quality reliable sources", which in most cases means books from reputable publishers, scholarly articles, etc. I certainly understand that sometimes lower-caliber sources can contain really useful material, but ultimately as an encyclopedia we just can't be basing large portions of our articles on them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand the general rule. But, I've been "tending the garden" of Norton research for nearly a decade now. And, one thing I've learned is that a presumption in favor of books doesn't usually apply here. Most of the books listed in the references section of the article trade heavily in oral tradition, hearsay and tall tales. Other than myself, Kramer may be the only one in the list who provides meaningful documentation. That includes Drury and Lane, the only book-length biographies that exist. While it's true that the entirety of my nearly 140-article output on issues pertaining to the life and legacy of Emperor Norton is published via a "blog" platform, it also is true that much of the project has amounted to a sustained instance of corrective and reconstructive surgery on "the literature" as it previously existed. Johnlumea (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hanford SiteEdit

Notified: Northwesterner1, WP Milhist, WP History of Science, WP Washington, WP Environment, WP NRH, WP Oregon, WP Science Policy, talk page notice 2022-07-01

This is a 2008 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; it's main writer has not edited since 2009. Other than DrKay, there are no recent active editors maintaining it. As mentioned on talk on 2022-07-01, the lead is too long, the article is dated, and recent scholarly sources have not been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to take on the task of maintaining the article as it is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. However, I am on vacation at present and will not have access to my books for another week. List the issues that we have with the article and I will make the required changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
The three main things are listed on talk:
  1. The lead is too long and needs a rewrite.
  2. There is very dated material and a new report out that hasn't even been consulted (basically, the main editor hasn't touched the article, so a top-to-bottom update is needed)
  3. A google scholar search is linked on talk, and recent scholarly articles need to be checked to see if further updates are needed.
No problem waiting ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Please feel free to ping me when you get to it. I would like to pitch in as well, I won't be able to work on it at all until Thursday, sounds like maybe we are on a similar schedule. Important article, I worked on it a bit during the FA push, and I readily concede that I haven't paid much attention to it for years. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Will do! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7 and Peteforsyth: since the original writer wasn't following, I've gone through the talk page to archive the old, but there are several threads I've left on talk that need to be reviewed as to whether there is merit or those items were addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I posted at Talk:Hanford_Site#National_Historic_Landmark_sourcing,_NRHP_docs my suggestion to cite the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination document, rather than just the "NHL summary" webpage (which has been taken offline anyhow, though there's a copy at Wayback machine). Content in the 48-page document should be used, I would think. It was written and edited by respectable persons, with credits to 2 writers and 2 editors on page 48. --Doncram (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)}

Alfred Russel WallaceEdit

Notified: Rusty Cashman, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Wales, 2022-08-27, 2021-07-03

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements and a large "Further reading" section whose inclusion into the article needs to be evaluated, an incomplete "Other contributions" section, and a criticism section (which is not recommended in modern articles because of POV concerns.) Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced statements: I've tidied up the text, adding citations and removing a few claims, so the whole text is now reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Further reading: removed the journal articles so it's a list exclusively of books which focus entirely on Wallace. That seems entirely apposite for this biographical article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Other contributions: as this was just a poetry section, renamed it to "Poetry". I've also trimmed it to a more apposite length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Criticism section: Well, there isn't one, exactly; there is a section headed "Controversies". The activities named are to an extent not unusual in Victorian times, so I broadly agree that a non-neutral heading is probably inappropriate. I've renamed the section neutrally as "Other activities". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I've also added alt texts; run the citation bot; checked dab links, ext links, and reflinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 - I believe I've addressed all your concerns? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I've been very busy in real life, but I have been following the edits on my phone and happy with this article's progress. When I have a moment I'll take a closer look at the article and either conduct edits or post additional concerns here (if I do not think I have the expertise to solve it). I also encourage others to leave comments and reviews here. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Only a cursory first glance:

  • Two of them are quoted; I've removed the rest. I've gone through the article copy-editing for British English prose, and have tightened up the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Similarly, can evolution be anything but subsequent ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it could be prior. This occurs only once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There is some duplication of wikilinks which can be reviewed by installing this script (I am not opposed to some repeat links as we get deeper in to the article, but there may be some here that can be removed)-- judgement call. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Went through again and removed all the overlinks that the tool had marked in red boxes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a very large number of very long quotes, and I wonder if we can't do more rephrasing in Wikipedia's own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Not specially many; I've paraphrased most of them. I think (however) that the account of how he discovered natural selection is well worth quoting in full. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I can't decipher a reason for MOS:BOLD here: The standard author abbreviation Wallace is used to indicate this person as the author when citing a botanical name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The sentence is auto-generated by "{{botanist|Wallace|inline=yes}}", boldface for the botanist and all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't looked beyond this standard stuff; dave souza might you be enticed to review this article as a content expert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap please ping me if we get to a place where a full read-through is needed (I'd prefer to see some more topic-area experts weigh in first, since that I am not ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I am the editor who originally put the article through FA. I believe it holds up pretty well. As far as the issue of too many long quotes, that issue came up during the original FA review. I argued successfully at the time that the quotes were the most effective way to convey Wallace's thoughts. I am not happy to loose the quote on invasive species from Island life, but I admit that the paraphrase it has been replaced with is pretty good. I agree with the commenter who said that we should not under any circumstances loose the quote about how he conceived of natural selection. It is too historically important to just paraphrase. One more thing I will mention when it comes to the issue of accuracy and appropriateness of the content is that just prior to putting it up for FA I was fortunate enough to have a fairly extensive correspondence with Charles H. Smith (historian), the curator of the Alfred Russel Wallace Page website and a noted expert with many publications about Wallace and his work. At one point he was kind enough to print out a copy of the article, mark it up with red ink, and mail it to me. I still have it. He helped with a few factual issues as well as with some issues of context and relative emphasis. I did enjoy pointing out that one of the factual issues he caught stemmed from some ambiguous wording in one his own published articles that I had used as source :) One thing I will do in the next few days is take a look for material published on Wallace in the past few years (since the article went through FA) to see if there have been any new discoveries about Wallace, or any changes in conclusions that should be reflected in the article. Thanks for letting me know this review was underway.Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rusty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
One thing I notice that seems to be missing from the article is a brief discussion of Wallace's involvement in the debate over the origin of human races some of which occurred while Wallace was chairman of the anthropology chapter of the British association. The article talks about Wallace's ideas about the origin of the higher mental functions but nothing at all about the debate over the origin of human races that prompted him to publish them. The topic is sensitive of course since nearly all 19th century anthropological ideas were racist and/or sexist by modern standards, but it was an important debate at the time, and Wallace was an important participant in it. It is probably worth a few sentences and I have some good sources. I will do some more reading and then take a stab at it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
OK I took a stab at it. I don't believe the article has any significant content issues. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia - three of us (all with knowledge of evolutionary biology) have checked over the article in different ways, and we all seem to think it's in decent shape. I've addressed all nom's and your initial concerns. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    Chiswick Chap thanks for the ping ... I'll get through as soon as I can then (will take a few days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

VampireEdit

Notified: Casliber, WikiProject Bulgaria, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Eastern Europe, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Occult, WikiProject Romania, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Skepticism, 2021-06-10, 2022-08-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because lots of information has been added to the article since its FAC, and that prose sometimes uses low-quality or unreliable sources. There are also lots of short, stubby paragraphs that should be evaluated. This is an article with high readership, so it would be great if this could be fixed up. FAC nominator has not edited Wikipedia since 2012, but since Cas is a top editor I notified them. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles listed above that are not in the article history of Vampire (Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption/archive1, Vampire lifestyle/archive1). Anyone know how to trim these out? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Darn, I so need Cas at schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, as I keep hoping they can avoid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
These high-traffic articles are...challenging. and article has crept up in size (again). Let's take a look..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok @Z1720: have removed material that is too narrow for article and kept valid updates since its promotion. Main thing now is formatting some references (sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Casliber: I tried tackling some references, but when I went into the wikicode I found a wide variety of reference formatting methods. Some books are listed in References, some have citations in References then are listed in Bibliography. Same goes with journals. Should this be standardised? There are also many reference formatting problems, with missing information and disorganisation. I also am suspicious of some references, like biffbampop.com, Didjaknow: Truly Amazing & Crazy Facts About ... Everything., Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit (a thesis from 1947) and world-science.net. This is much more than a quick fixer-upper; if sources are kept, the information should be verified if the source was added after its promotion. If it is removed, the information that it is citing will also need to removed or better sources found. This is much more than I am willing to tackle, as I am very busy at the moment and will be even less available later in the week. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The way I have generally done references is that I have the whole citation in the References section, unless it is a book that I've used multiple bits of. In which case I'll have the complete reference in the (what has been renamed on this page) the bibliography section. High traffic articles suffer from frequent additions. Have been busy myself with house moving etc. Will plug onwards with referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Norwich City F.C.Edit

Notified: The Rambling Man, Dweller, CanaryOJ, Joseph2302, Mattythewhite, ZakNelson1995, Screech123, C.Fred, WP Football, WP England, WP East Anglia, WP Football/England task force, noticed in April

Has good bones, but needs a bit of a makeover. The ownership section contains significant uncited text, and disjointedly ends with the prior chairman. The Statistics and records also contains a fair proportion of uncited text, there's an empty section ("Development squad"), as well as uncited lists and tables (players of the season, out on loan, etc.) Also an internal contradiction - the lead claims "The fans' song "On the Ball, City" is the oldest football chant in the world, written in 1890 and still sung today", while the body qualifies this as chant in use and says it was written in the 1890s, not specifically 1890. Sourcing may also need to be checked in places - "Another photograph, taken on a match day that same season, shows that despite the era's limited car ownership, a parking area was provided at the ground" contains minor original research as this is just a photo of cars parked, and says nothing about car ownership of the time frame. Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think this is probably fixable. Here's the to-do list:
  1. Ownership section - DONE Dweller
  2. Statistics and records - I've fixed most of this now, and tagged three unsourced claims, that The Rambling Man has said he'll try to take a look at. Dweller DONE TRM
  3. Development squad - DONE Dweller
  4. On The Ball, City - DONE Dweller
  5. Sourcing checks - DONE TRM
  6. Photograph - DONE Dweller

I'll put my name against the things I'll work on before I take them. If anyone else wants to help, they're welcome. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I can check sources if needed, but I'm not going to be a good options for knowing where to track down suitable replacements if needed. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost finished. When TRM has finished with number 2, would you like to do the sourcing check, Hog Farm? If you need suitable replacements for anything you can check here and one of us will step in. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, if you or TRM ping me when it's ready for that stage I'll get to it as soon as I get the chance. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Dweller, might you remove the done templates (not used at FAC or FAR), lest someone else start that up? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Gosh, sorry. Looks like someone else (TRM?) sorted this for me. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

1930 FIFA World CupEdit

Notified: Oldelpaso, WikiProject Uruguay, WikiProject Football, 2021-05-15 2022-08-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements, the use of low-quality sources (like self-published works and blogs), and sections that can be removed or added (as I indicated on the talk page). Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like to address the issues, but if this process is already a week into a two week time frame I have no chance of making much headway in that time. Compared to 2009 (was it really 13 years ago?) I have significant pressures on my time and will only be able to make progress at a glacial rate. Oldelpaso (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Oldelpaso: FAR co-ords are usually amenable to keeping FARs open as long as improvements are continuing in the article. Feel free to ping me when improvements are complete and I will take another look. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Comparing to the promoted version, the questionable sources appear to be subsequent additions. Looks like a case of going through the newer additions line by line and either integrating with better sources or discarding. The most substantive change is the bit about 3rd/4th place. This is somewhat overexplained, though I understand why. The issue occasionally gets attention in Serbia, leading to well meaning but often inaccurate changes advancing thr view of Yugoslavia being the third placed team. There should be a more elegant rewrite possible.
I don't really have any ability to expand a cultural depictions section. Its not something the books covering the tournament go into. I'm wondering if a "Legacy" section might be the way to go for this, and tidying up the last surviving players part. A short summary of how the tournament went on to become the behemoth it is today, into which bits like that could be woven.
My knowledge of FA standards is rusty at best - I think this 13 year old effort might be my most recent. Could there be mileage in tag bombing the statements requiring better sourcing? Oldelpaso (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
@Oldelpaso: Sorry for the late reply, I missed this on my talk page. I think, instead of tag bombing, it might be better to first search for better sources, and then replace the lower-quality sources with the higher-quality (and update the prose to reflect the new source, if necessary). Afterwards, statements with sources that couldn't be replaced can be evaluated for their inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Oldelpaso's last edit to Wikipedia was September 11. Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Interested yes, but sadly not able to commit, as for family reasons I am unable to spare more than a few minutes here and there. It appears the Almeida book is self published which is a shame. There's good stuff in there; the parts that can be corroborated by other sources suggest it is rigorous, but that doesnt pass muster for WP:RS. Trying to replace those references likely leaves things overly reliant on the Freddi book. Short of finding a friendly South American editor with access to contemporary newspapers I may struggle. I don't think there's a huge amount of work to be done in terms of sorting out the text, it's getting the references to the required standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

El LissitzkyEdit

Notified: all wikiprojects, plus relevant editors,[2] talk page notice May 22, 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because uncited text and other issues identified by Extraordinary Writ have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I will take a look in a week or so. I have several good sources, so this hopefully shouldn't be the problem. Will be updating here, though please do not expect a fast resolution of all issues, I'm really busy in RL now. (I made only few minor edits to the article before, so if someone who done more work is willing to do it, you are certainly welcome!) Artem.G (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing here is probably the worst I saw in any FA! Half are not reliable (at least by my standards), half is too old, almost nothing available online. Will try to find newer sources, will take longer than I expected. Besides, a lot of sections need expansion and ce. Artem.G (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Artem.G you haven't edited this since 7 August; shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on an overhaul in my sandbox, will update the article in the next couple of weeks. Artem.G (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Update: got two important lengthy sources through Resource Request, work is ongoing. I'm also planning to ask somebody knowledgeable in arts to look through the article after the rewrite, as it is generally not my topic. Artem.G (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Artem.G, could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Still working on it. I got really busy irl, but expect to return to it in a week or two. Turned out I greatly underestimate how much should be reworked. Artem.G (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

SupernovaEdit

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

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

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.
Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)
My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
@WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Not vague enough thou. There are too many unsourced statements and some short paragraohs should be formatted. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
mikeu: there are a couple uncited paragraphs in "Type II", one in "Type Ib and Ic", one in "Light curves", six in "Energy output", and three in "Progenitor". Nothing leaps out at me as inaccurate — the people who wrote the text in the first place probably knew what they were doing! — but I'm not a specialist and may have overlooked something. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[3][4][5] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • There is image sandwiching and images placed at bottoms of sections. What date format is in use ? (I see three different ones). There is overlinking; user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to evaluate them (some repeat links are useful, judgment is needed). The prose does not seem to have deteriorated. That's all I've looked at so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the duplicated links with a view to replacing some when the article is close to being FA standard again. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus:

  • The "Observation history" section of the Supernova article discusses supernovae types before they have been covered by the "Classification" section. For this reason I think the "Observation history" section should be moved down below "Classification". It could possibly go before the "Current models" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why "Observation history" and "Discovery" are separate sections; they read like one big section that should be organized chronologically. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
They even point to the same main article. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I took a crack at merging the two sections, performing some re-organization in the process. Praemonitus (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I went through the references and performed various cleanups for consistency. An inaccessible reference was removed and another replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The inclusion criteria for the table with the caption "Historical supernovae" is unclear. It includes modern supernovae, supernovae outside the local group, but not the brightest modern supernovae. Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I think drop the 1979 and 2014 entries. That leaves a fairly comprehensive list up to 1680, plus S Andromedae in 1885 and SN1987A. Maybe drop one or two of the uncertain old ones? The 386 event doesn't have an article and it is uncertain if it was even a supernova. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, for now I just constrained it to the Local Group. Praemonitus (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The "Observation history" section discusses the supernovae type of "SN 2016gkg" before types have been explained. I'm not clear that the last three paragraphs of the section are even needed here. They are more like "Recent findings" of a mildly significant nature. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
People do like to tack on the latest piece of "exciting" news they read. Usually it isn't something of longterm of hirtorical importance. I agree it could be pruned. Or even better, expanded but with the emphasis on discoveries of more lasting significance, probably mainly older ones. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I took the action of trimming back the last, rather bloated paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Good move. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The "Non-standard Type Ia" section appears to need some work. It could use a proper introduction, not just a series of cases. Clarification is lacking in many paragraphs. For example, the sentence that begins "Abnormally bright type Ia supernovae occur" is a muddle. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Could be my fault. I don't really know a lot about Type Ias and even less about the peculiar ones, so that is a pretty weak area. Unfortunately type Ia supernova isn't much help. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I rewrote that particularly muddled sentence, but the subsection is still choppy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
A reference that may be useful: Gal-Yam, Avishay (2017). "Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae". Handbook of Supernovae. Springer. pp. 195–237. arXiv:1611.09353. Bibcode:2017hsn..book..195G. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_35. ISBN 978-3-319-21845-8. OCLC 1016955731. Section 2.2 is about "Peculiar Type Ia Supernovae". XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a common definition of the "Non-Standard Type Ia" supernovae. The double white dwarf model just appears to be the standard second model. Hence I changed the section name. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the benefit of including the illustration with the caption "Artist's impression of supernova 1993J". What information is it meant to convey? Praemonitus (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice image, but there are lots of other nice, and real, images. Type IIb supernova in M81, so a little unusual, mentioned in the text, but the image doesn't really add anything. SN 1993J has an article, so I wikilinked the caption, but it is wikilinked in the text and the image is in the linked article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The statement, "Extremely luminous stars at near solar metallicity will lose all their hydrogen before they reach core collapse and so will not form a type II supernova" is then followed by the "Type Ib and Ic" where a supernova forms that has lost its hydrogen. This is ambiguous. Is the statement just saying it can't be a type II? Or that it can't form a supernova period? This and the following sentence are unsourced, it appears. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Just that any supernova won't be type II. The reference after the first sentence of the paragraph can confirm this. Also, it is something of an unsolved problem whether stars higher than the cutoff mass for producing a type II supernova will produce any supernova at all. Some or all of them may produce a type Ib or Ic, or neither. The referenced paper is dedicated to this problem. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I rewrote it slightly so that is clear. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Although the energy that disrupts each type of supernovae is delivered promptly, the light curves are dominated by subsequent radioactive heating of the rapidly expanding ejecta." Huh? The word "disrupts" doesn't quite make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I think it is referring to the initial implosion/explosion. That is a *very* rapid event, with gravitational potential energy causing heating and photodisintegration followed by enormous neutrino generation and (somehow) the conversion of the initial inward collapse into an outward explosion all within seconds, but the material that is ejected into space then radiates for various reasons for months or years. Radioactivity from isotopes created during supernova nucleosynthesis in that very rapid implosion/explosion is one of the dominant sources of that electromagnetic radiation. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I modified it slightly for clarify. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "The intensely radioactive nature of the ejecta gases, which is now known to be correct for most supernovae, was first calculated on sound nucleosynthesis grounds in the late 1960s." What does 'correct' mean here? Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
"Correct" would presumably mean that it has been verified, observed, and become consensus understanding. It was none of these things in the 1960s. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I re-ordered the sentence for clarity. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Frankly, an FAR by a blocked sock puppet is a bit of a stretch for a continuation. If nobody provides additional feedback, I motion to close the FAR. The article seems to be in decent shape. It's an active field though, so it may need to come back at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
      • If Praemonitus is happy with the article, I am too, and I'll agree with the call to close these proceedings. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

90377 SednaEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • As noted, the classification isn't straight-forward (for example, the dwarf planet classification is at odds with the "official" IAU status, compare Talk:90377_Sedna#Sedna_is_not_a_dwarf_planet_according_to_the_IAU). I think there is room for improvement when it comes to how Wikipedia handles these cases in general, but so far, the Sedna article seems to be in line with what we do elsewhere. No action about this is needed in the Sedna article, as far as I am concerned.
  • Johnston's Archive, which is used in some similar articles ((589683) 2010 RF43, for example) classifies Sedna simply as a sednoid.[8] Should we add that as an additional source?
  • Regarding the lack of objects in Sedna's vicinity, I think the claim at least requires a reference that says what it actually means. I am uncomfortable with solely relying on your (reasonable) interpretation, Sportsfan77777, especially since the sentence was added when my interpretation would have been purely hypothetical.
  • Caltech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Brown have hypothesised the existence of a giant planet in the outer Solar System, nicknamed Planet Nine. - The numbers in that section (mass, orbital period) don't reflect the latest results by Batygin&Brown, compare the Planet Nine article. Should we update this?
  • To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case. - The reference for this is (Brown, 2008), which is fairly old, and determining whether something is in hydrostatic equilibrium was thought to be easier at the time. Brown's "dwarf planet census" seems to have fallen out of favour recently, because it is no longer in line with scientific consensus. See Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_there_some_reason_why_we_still_keep_Brown's_values? for a discussion. It turns out that this is complicated (for a recent related discussion of the possible shortfalls of what "hydrostatic equilibrium" means, see Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_the_Moon_in_hydrostatic_equilibrium?). An additional problem is that the size at which an object is expected to be in HE depends on its composition. In 2019, Grundy et al. found Sedna to likely be in HE, but also that many objects with diameters of 400-1000 km (Sedna: ca.1000 km) have densities that don't seem to allow for them to be in HE.[1] Compare the discussion at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Grundy_et_al.’s_assessment. Sedna's density remains unknown.
  • and several astronomers have called it one - That's nice, but none of the cited references is younger than 10 years. We can add Grundy from 2019, but it would be nice to have additional recent sources. I'll see if I can find any. Maybe someone can have a look, too?
  • What about the addition of an "observations" section? I see one reply above that argues against it, and one on the article talk page that is in favour of the addition. Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Renerpho: it would be nice to have additional recent sources. User:Double sharp found several from this year and last: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Though the 400k limit in the 2nd is obsolete. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Buie, M.W.; Benecchi, S.D.; Ragozzine, D.; Roe, H.G. (December 2019). "The mutual orbit, mass, and density of transneptunian binary Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà ((229762) 2007 UK126)" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037. S2CID 126574999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-07.
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the Planet Nine numbers and made some other small emendations. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the concerns raised above have been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs closer scrutiny, samples only from only looking at one small section:

  • Cited to 2010 archive.org ... Although Sedna is listed on NASA's Solar System exploration website,[83] NASA is not known to be considering any type of mission at this time.[84] Update ???
    Removed. XOR'easter (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Passive voice, cited to 2011, update ? It was calculated that a flyby mission to Sedna could take 24.48 years using a Jupiter gravity assist, based on launch dates of 6 May 2033 or 23 June 2046. Sedna would be 77.27 or 76.43 AU from the Sun when the spacecraft arrived near the end of 2057 or 2070, respectively.[85]
  • WP:FORBESCON, not reliable, https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/05/22/is-humanity-ignoring-our-first-chance-for-a-mission-to-an-oort-cloud-object/?sh=5d0858e36953
  • Speculation cited to 2009, update? Such a mission could be facilitated by Dual-Stage 4-Grid ion thrusters that might cut cruise times considerably if powered, for example, by a fusion reactor.[87]
  • Move to FARC, we don't have enough resources to rewrite every Astronomy FA, and no one is keeping up with them. If I found problems in every line by looking at only one small section, two months in to this FAR, we have problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Calculations in celestial dynamics stay valid, so the 2011 paper didn't go stale or anything. I added a summary of a more recent study. That particular Forbes contributor is an astrophysicist, so it's probably fine. XOR'easter (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

As I look at other sections, it doesn't get better. "The trans-Neptunian planet hypothesis has been advanced in several forms by a number of astronomers, including Rodney Gomes and Patryk Lykawka. One scenario involves perturbations of Sedna's orbit by a hypothetical planetary-sized body in the Hills cloud.". The only mention of the Hills Cloud in the entire article ... what is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed.
I really don't think the article is in that bad shape. Rushing to demote it just compounds the problem of having too many astronomy articles simultaneously at FAR; I was almost optimistic that we'd get them all finished, but elevating the priority of the least-trafficked of the three articles just makes it harder for the few available volunteers to progress in an orderly way. XOR'easter (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, trust you on this, but concerned that you are being overworked :). So, instead of Move to FARC, I suggest we take more time to make sure this is OK before we let it out of here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent scholarly sources to check:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

PlanetEdit

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

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

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

There appears to be a bunch of quotations in the subsection about the 2006 IAU definition of a planet that make the section look choppy, maybe we could try reducing it? Blue Jay (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The question of poor referencing is addressed, in "Size and shape" there is still 'needs expansion' template. Everything else is not bad, though a copyedit would help (maybe should ask at GOCE?). There is a question about 2006 IAU defenition raised above, but I don't really know how it can be reduced - quotes are from the IAU, so probably it's better to have a quote than a cluncky paraphrase. Artem.G (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I took a break from my break and expanded the "Size and shape" subsection a bit. I don't know what to do with the IAU definition business. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the quote from Soter could be paraphrased; it's not an official statement of any kind, so we don't need to worry about preserving its exact words. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I tried my hand at paraphrasing the Soter quote. Maybe that subsection is a little less choppy now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Do y'all want dmy or mdy date format? The article has both. (I prefer dmy for topics beyond the US.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    No one answered, so I script-installed dmy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Excess detail in "Mythology and naming" section; everything mentioned there has its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've started trimming it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I got up to the "Solar System" section working on MOS:OVERLINK, but it takes off after that, and perhaps someone else will finish. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is glitching right now, but if you ignore the duplication it produces at the top, and push on down, it works. I don't believe in one link only on technical articles, particularly when the terms are far apart, but there is unnecessary overlinking here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    The duplink tool is working again, so I did a bit more reducing. I left quite a number of duplicate links, as IMO it's OK to repeat uncommon links further on in the article. But I suspect more link reduction can be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
    I've de-linked some instances that seemed redundant. XOR'easter (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • As seems to happen on every astronomy article, the image layout is awful, and needs attention ... too many, too large, big bunches of white space, MOS:SANDWICH (see 19th century section), faulty punctuation on MOS:CAPTIONS ... all the usual. I could fix all of this myself, but this is a perennial problem on astronomy articles, and those editors need to start stepping up; the problems will just come back post-FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    This section in particular, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • See also needs pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Author name formatting in citations should be standardized (I noticed eg Francesca Rochberg). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think we got them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a however and an also problem: see User:SandyGeorgia/Useful#Copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Addressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Some citations use display-authors = etal, others use display-authors=4; pick one, standardize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Think we got them, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Cited to 2006 and 2007 (including a press release), begging for an update and newer scholarly sources, and suggesting the article has not yet been checked throughout for dated content.
    Hot Jupiters, due to their extreme proximities to their host stars, have been shown to be losing their atmospheres into space due to stellar radiation, much like the tails of comets.[164][165] These planets may have vast differences in temperature between their day and night sides that produce supersonic winds,[166] although the day and night sides of HD 189733 b appear to have very similar temperatures, indicating that that planet's atmosphere effectively redistributes the star's energy around the planet.[163] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Revised. XOR'easter (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    Partial strike (has this been checked throughout??). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've made a first read-through for dated content, but I need to do a more thorough check (for things like statements that are still true but are sourced to websites that have since broken). XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Got it ... thanks!!! ... after that pass, I am (next) concerned about how the article is organized ... see my note below re how History has sprawled ... but maybe that can be addressed later? 03:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The lead should be free of jargon or terms defined ... I had to look up accretion ... A planet is a large astronomical body that is neither a star nor a stellar remnant. According to the best available theory, planets form when a nebula collapses to create a protostar and a surrounding protoplanetary disk, in which planets grow by the process of accretion. At least eight planets exist ... can the "at least eight planets exist" come before the tecno-stuff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Continued below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • and all of them save Venus and Mercury possess natural satellites. --> and all except Venus and Mercury have ... why use big words when not necessary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    Changed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:EMDASHes are never spaced on Wikipedia, and the article later on uses spaced WP:ENDASHes. Pick one and be consistent. These include hot Jupiters — giant planets that orbit close to their parent stars — SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think all are now converted to EMDASHes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • but Earth remains the only planet known to support life. --> Earth is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't even started looking at reliability of sources, article organization, or prose. It is troubling that the Astronomy project has not kept any of its FAs up to snuff, and seems to expect XOR'easter to fix up every one of them. If I Were Queen of the Wiki, I'd MOVE TO FARC, and we'd speedily delist the lot, and save XOR's talents for other work. I suggest the Astronomy project should get kicking; years of decline are insufficient excuse for why so few should have to work so hard to bail all of these out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on the very last bullet point; "remains" was chosen deliberately for contrast with the first half of the sentence, which is about the discovery of potentially habitable planets. This isn't a verb choice I'm ride-or-die for, just a case where "is" lacked the desired punch.
My attempt at a lede did put the "at least eight planets exist" line before the nebular hypothesis part, not out of any grand design but just to roughly follow the structure of the article body. I've done some checking for punctuation consistency and have made a first go at pruning the "See also". XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Struck that one, will catch up on the rest later today ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Looked at your this version of your sandbox ... the proposal looks to be an example of a lead articially constrained to four paragraphs by the silliness at WP:LEAD. I'd advocate for consideration of five paragraphs, reorganized .. things like perhaps adding the etymology to the history paragraph, etc. Huge first para, followed by two very short paras feels artificially constrained. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
That sandbox was my replacement for the lede that the article had when this review was opened (see the above comments from early May). It was reorganized two months after insertion, bringing the etymology together with the history and evening out the paragraph lengths. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Some suggestions for technical language in the lede: replace "stellar remnant" with "remnant of a dead star" (keeping the same wikilink)? Elaborate on the meaning of "accretion" with some phrasing like "...the gradual accumulation of material driven by gravity, a process called accretion"? I have no ideas that I'm really confident in. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Work for me, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've made that change; maybe someone can improve upon it. XOR'easter (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
As the second encountered in the article, this sentence is still quite dense to the layreader ... I still have to look up many terms.
Must the sentence be second, and can it be moved to the end of the para? And could it be:
I'm fine with that rewrite. I'm not sure it would work at the end of the paragraph, though; jumping from the specificity of Saturn's rings to the very general theme of planet formation is jarring to me. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Will leave final decision/install to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That Ceres Pluto and Eris are dwarf planets is mentioned (at least) three times in the article; I'm not sure how to fix it, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I removed one of the instances as it followed pretty soon after another. XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • In this section, Are you comfortable with text cited to The Planetary Society (citation 3) without attribution? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see a problem with it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • What is this citation?
    Ramasubramanian etc. (1994) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Removed; see edit summary for my best guess. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • What is this? [13] ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Removed. XOR'easter (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The History section is choppy, with (at least?) five small, one-paragraph sections. And one has to get through it before getting to anything else. It looks as if it was chopped up only to add the (less than helpful) images to each section. It seems there must be a better way to present this info, but not my wheelhouse. The Table of Contents when promoted was much simpler. I'm not sure how to fix this, but the top of the article is off-putting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'm inclined to delete the tables (see the discussion on the Talk page) and merge some of those short subsections to make "Scientific Revolution and the discovery of new planets", or maybe "Scientific Revolution and the telescope". XOR'easter (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I don't care for the tables (which I called images) at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Tables removed; subsections merged. XOR'easter (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    Moving in the right direction, looking better already. I have (non-astronomer) questions about the Margot's criterion single-paragraph section. Is it due weight to have an entire section about a 2015 proposal? The reader doesn't get a sense of what kind of traction the proposal has gained in the seven years since. That it is singled out gives the impression it has wide traction, but the content gives no clue where that stands or why it warrants being singled out.
    Similarly, do we need separate sections for one short Muslim paragraph, and two short India paragraphs? Can we go back to a simpler Table of contents, using something like Antiquity? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I was going to look at those mini-sections next. The historical ones need to be checked against topical reviews in order to make sure that they're not just trivia bins. I expect some rewriting will be necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've merged the two small subsections on medieval astronomy and done some rewriting. XOR'easter (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    So much better, struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Page no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable ???

I can't decipher why two blockquotes (but not others) are displaying in tiny font from an iPhone (but not iPad): the definition of Planet quote and the quote about "substellar-mass body" in the Geophysical definitions section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what would cause that. Maybe someone at the technical Village Pump would know? XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
VPT query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Nothing yet at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Planet: small font on block quotes. (I think we should try to get this sorted, because of the number and size of images used throughout planetary articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
XOR'easter see my sandbox: User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#2006_IAU_definition_of_planet. Will that work? It leaves the font sizes of surrounding text unaffected, but has to be placed in the middle: first, to avoid the font size problem, and second, per MOS:ACCIM, not to place it at the bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't particularly care how that image is placed. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, see also this. So I'll go ahead and fiddle with these two then, and make sure they work without doing anything outside of MOS recommendations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Done fiddling, this version, struck; I have rearranged the large images with respect to the block quotes, and everything looks good on all my devices; I hope others will check different devices and browsers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The highlight template isn't supposed to be used at FAC and FAR, as it causes template limits problems in archives, but I have temporarily highlighted above the only things above not yet addressed. I'll remove the highlighting as soon as they are seen. 19:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a lot happier with this article than I was when we started. But now I've been looking at it so much that I can't see problems (if that makes any sense). I'll step back for a day or so to refresh my eyes and let others work uninterrupted. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • There is some bouncing around of topics that may be unavoidable, but is worth looking at. Because History is presented before Solar System, a lot of concepts are discussed in multiple parts of the article before they are fully defined, or defined in bits and pieces here and there, or there is repetition. As examples of this, consider dwarf plaent and neighborhood clearing-- there are others. I'm not sure if moving History after Solar System would solve the problem, or just introduce other problems. Unsure how to fix this, or if it even needs to be fixed, but is something for the experts to look at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
    I noticed that repetition but am also unsure what to do about it (or if anything in fact needs doing). A modest amount of repetition may be acceptable if a point recurs in multiple contexts and we do not assume the article will always be read top-to-bottom. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look through this article over the next couple days, and probably make tweaks as I go along. Ovinus (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • "possess an atmosphere, even Mercury" I'd qualify it with like, "(although tenuous)"; most people when they think of "atmosphere" they will not imagine something so thin. Alternatively it could be removed from the lead as this is not the solar system article Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • "Historically, planets have had religious associations" idk if the word "historically" is oriented. If anything it's a bit Western-centric, as there are probably religions which still personify the planets in some way? Not sure though. Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I have made some bold edits to the lead which I would appreciate your opinion on. Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • These edits seem OK to me. XOR'easter (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the article from top to bottom; thanks to many editors, and especially XOR, I think the article satisfies FA standards. As a nominator of this FAR, I think it should be closed, and article should stay FA. Artem.G (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • I think I have stared at this article too much by now to be able to see what needs fixing. XOR'easter (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    Wait, I've said that twice in the same review? Ouch. XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Artem; the article is actually in great shape thanks to XOR and others' efforts. I'll probably make a few prose tweaks, but it is a fine, FA-level article. Ovinus (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @SandyGeorgia: I agree it should be shorter, and I perhaps focused too much on the small scale writing issues. Moving History down seems wise; we should be starting with "Definition" anyway. XOR'easter Double sharp what do you think of that? I'll also try to trim the Mythology and Solar System sections; I'm not sure we should spend a lot of space in the Planet article on a topic which can be much better covered in Solar System. Ovinus (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
    • @SandyGeorgia: I agree it should probably be shorter, so I won't formally support closure at the moment. Moving History down seems wise; we should be starting with "Definition" anyway. XOR'easter Double sharp what do you think? Ovinus (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      One of the reasons this is not a firm objection from me is that I had a horrible time trying to deal with the same problem at dementia with Lewy bodies, and couldn't get it below 9,000 words, to the 8,000-word range I prefer. But the difference in that case is that the recommended sections at MEDMOS make it very clear where any new text should be placed, so that together with MEDRS sourcing requirements, I have been able to keep the article from exploding. I'm not convinced we have a tight enough structure to serve us well going forward here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      I think having "History" before "Definition" makes sense in this case, because the history is part of why spelling out a definition is not simple. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      Yes, I was concerned that adjusting this is not an easy fix (six of one, half a dozen of another) but can we find a solution, perhaps by seeing some sandbox mockups? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      That's a good point. Hm. Ovinus (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      I think it is not so bad as all that. There are two main definition types in the literature: dynamical (following the IAU), and geophysical (everything round is a planet). The geophysical definition is pretty much to take clause (b) of the IAU definition and reject clauses (a) and (c). This is not that hard to describe, I think. The history is part of why there is this conflict indeed, but another part of it is the attributes of the planets themselves: to a geologist, the Moon is obviously in the same class as the Earth, because it has canyons, craters, and volcanoes just like the Earth does, whereas to a dynamicist, it is equally obviously not because the Moon orbits around the Earth, while the Earth orbits around the Sun. So it is not surprising that the two disciplines use "planet" differently to express what's more important to their fields. We already put "Attributes" at the bottom, so I don't see why "History" has to be at the top. Double sharp (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I made a few small additions about the large moons and dwarf planets. I concur with the general opinion here – the article meets FA standards now. Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    These additions look good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the dwarf planets and moons to the "Planetary attributes" table. Also threw together a short section on planetary symbols, since previously we mentioned them in the context of changing attitudes towards the asteroids but never said what they were. Double sharp (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

This one's looking a lot better: any chance of getting page numbers to help with verification for some of the longer sources, such as :

  • "Hermann Hunger, ed. (1992). Astrological reports to Assyrian kings. State Archives of Assyria. Vol. 8. Helsinki University Press. ISBN 978-951-570-130-5."
  • "Cameron, Alan (2005). Greek Mythography in the Roman World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517121-1."
  • ""Solar System", in The English Cyclopaedia of Arts and Sciences, vol. VII-VIII, 1861"
    • Couldn't find the original; found some other sources to substitute it. Double sharp (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Dvorak, R.; Kurths, J.; Freistetter, F. (2005). Chaos And Stability in Planetary Systems. New York: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-28208-2."

Also some citation formatting issues:

  • "Mike Brown, 'How many dwarf planets are there in the outer solar system?' Archived October 18, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Accessed November 15, 2013" needs some citation formatting improvements.
  • ""The Origin and Early Development of the Nine Planetary Deities (Navagraha). (Volumes I and II) – ProQuest". www.proquest.com. Retrieved 13 May 2022." - proquest isn't the publisher its the University of Michigan and we're missing the author, the date, and the fact that this is a PHD thesis
  • "Ali-Abu'l-Hassan, Mas'ûdi (31 July 2018). "Historical Encyclopaedia: Entitled "Meadows of gold and mines of gems"". Printed for the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland – via Google Books." - despite what the citation says, this is actually from 1841 if I read the Roman numerals right.

Concerns about the reliability of a few sources: " "earth in Greek | English-Greek translation | YourDictionary". www.yourdictionary.one. Retrieved 13 May 2022." is this really high-quality RS?

  • "Natan, Yoel (31 July 2018). Moon-o-theism. Vol. I of II. Yoel Natan. ISBN 9781438299648 – via Google Books." - definitely self-published. Can't tell if this related to the Allah as a lunar deity theory or is a Jewish polemic against Islam (a skim of the table of contents suggests maybe some of both), but I wouldn't consider this a useable source for what its citing
    • I've deleted the claim, as a start.
    • But there's more problems there. The Mars etymology is cited to an 1841 source that only lists it as one possibility. Apparently the actual origin of the Arabic word is not that clear; Wilhelm Eilers (1975, pp. 76–78) puts forward some theories. He also disagrees with the etymologies listed for Arabic Mercury and Jupiter. There's some interesting links to papers in this History Stack Exchange answer (I know, not an RS, but links to some). What I am getting is that the etymologies of the Arabic names for the planets are not really well-understood or agreed on, but I start to suspect that we'll need somebody with a linguistics background to sort this out neutrally. Double sharp (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Asked at WT:LING. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Since I couldn't find an Arabist to answer my question, I've tried my best to summarise the state of affairs as it seems to me from reading sources (Venus, Earth, and Saturn seem to have better-known etymologies; the others, who knows). Double sharp (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • ""Planetary Spheres كواكب". 29 August 2016." - any indication at all that this is RS?
  • "Strobel, Nick. "Planet tables". astronomynotes.com. Retrieved 1 February 2008." - Strobel's personal website, what are his credentials for this subject matter?
    • The material in question was already in one of the NASA sources, so I've just replaced it with that. Double sharp (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing has improved since SandyGeorgia's look-through, but I still have a few concerns. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I will do a read-through once the sourcing issues and page numbers by Hog Farm are cleared up (please ping me when that is done, I am determined for now on clearing up our oldest-- much older-- FAR, Joan of Arc, and want to stay focused there).
I remain concerned that others take a hard look at whether the text bouncing around can be addressed-- mainly in the hopes that the text can be trimmed via looking at the organization. Is the placement of History before other more definitional sections contributing to this problem? If history is moved to the bottom, with earlier sections focusing on the present, can the article be more tightly summarized? As one example, search the text for Dwarf Planet and notice how many times dwarf planet is linked (overlinked) and discussed before it is defined. Editors have rightly focused on getting the prose shiny and fixing sourcing, but has anyone taken a hard look at whether a different organization might result in a trimmer article? If we let this out of FAR with repetition at 9,000 words, a year or two from now, we're likely to find the article at 12,000 words, as there are so many opportunities for others to stick new text in wherever they fancy.
Once I turn my attention to a read-through, this is not going to be a strong objection from me, as I do recognize readers will bounce around as well to the topic that interests them, but I'm still worried that we can do better on this. I hope we can take a top-level look at whether History should be moved later in the article, whether Mythology and naming can be trimmed, and things like that. I'd feel more comfortable if the article could be made tighter, trimmer, with less repetition, and end up at around the 8,000 word range, so that we can more clearly steer future editors who seek to add new text, so the article doesn't explode again. But, in the end, I will defer to the experts on this ... pls ping me when HF's issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, both Artem.G and Ovinus have declrations above that look like Close without FARC declarations; if that is the intent, such declarations should be stated and bolded for clarity (for the Coords). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)Edit

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

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

Comments

  • As Hogfarm noted, the article relies on DANFS too much; it's a government source, which should be used with some caution. Some use is fine depending on the context, and in the cases of very obscure ships, it's unavoidable, but Missouri is among the most famous, well-documented ships so finding alternatives is not a problem.
  • There are a number of sources that could be consulted to address the DANFS issue, in addition to Stillwell. Garzke & Dulin would be a good first choice to supplement Stillwell. I'm not familiar with Reilly's book, but it should also be useful; Caresse's The Battleships of the Iowa Class: A Design and Operational History might also help (though I'm given to understand that it's pretty photo heavy).
  • There is a fair bit of extraneous info that could be culled. For example, in the Korea section the two paragraphs that begin and end at "MacArthur's amphibious landings at Incheon...were evacuated by way of the sea on 24 December 1950." are almost completely off-topic that could be summarized in a sentence or two to provide the context needed.
  • There are plenty of prose issues that need to be ironed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The box is very long, and I don't think it does its purpose of summarizing the article well; it more or less fills the same purpose as the lead section (with the exception of technical information that is better suited to tabular display), and I think the article's authors have lost sight of that. It's filled with extraneous info that add little for the reader's understanding of the topic. I could happily see the badge, motto, and nickname fields go; the locator map for Pearl Harbor probably isn't of much use; I'm 50/50 on whether Margaret Truman should be listed in the sponsor field (in that yes, she's notable, but is she all that significant in the narrative of this ship that she should be mentioned in the box? The ordered field could probably go as well, in the interest of trimming things down. And the architect field in the NHRP section is redundant.
  • Conversely, the lead is far too short and doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Why do we care that this ship was the third vessel named after the state? And why is that included when ship's WWII and Korea activities are described in a single sentence? No mention of goodwill cruises in the 1940s, or the grounding in 1950, or any of the ship's activities in the 80s and 90s apart from Desert Storm (which is also pretty minimal). For an article that is 75kb long, I'd expect more than 7(!) sentences in the lead.
  • I'd wonder whether anything of note has happened since 2010, the latest info we have on the ship here. I know visitation was shut down in 2020, returned to limited operation late in the year, and then returned to full operation in mid-2021 - presumably that should be included. Apparently various educational activities and such are held aboard the ship - presumably that should be mentioned too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Beyond what Hog Farm and Parsecboy have already mentioned, the images seem a little repetitive. There are two photographs of the exact same perspective from different decades. That would be great in a coffee table book, but I'm not sure how that is encyclopedic as there is no mention of how the second one differs from the first one other than time and painted numbers. The pop culture section should discuss the vessel's use in film (why is it chosen over other American museum battleships) and not just have a listing of what movies the vessel appeared in. Was there any fallout from the Cher music video beyond the navy not being happy? Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
    • According to Stillwell, the Cher incident created a minor controversy in the press (and generated complaints from veterans) but nothing significant as far as official reactions; as far as what he says, it's not clear to me that the Navy was particularly unhappy, since it amounted to free publicity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, so even more reason to support your positions earlier, Stillwell needs more use. Llammakey (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
        Stillwell had almost 2 full (interesting) pages on it. Parsecboy you are right, the article had it wrong. I reworked and cited the whole section. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
        • For the curious (I was, obviously) the FA criteria added the bit about being representative of published works in Aug 2006, about a year after this article's FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I’m late to this party, sorry, I’m just off work and after 8 long nights I am wiped out, but I note that I stand by what I stated earlier: the article itself is still sound. The external links are good and the sourcing is adequate, although the reliance on danfs and prose puffery have chewed into the articles quality. Still, though, this is a good 80% or so still featured article, so migrating sources and trimming prose shouldn’t be too hard here.
  • As noted at the the article talk page, I'm not interested in becoming an advocate for FA status, but am interested in helping to improve the article, including working in some areas noted here. I did order the Stilwell and Butler books. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I received the Stilwell book and started reading it. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe that I resolved the issue of insufficient coverage of Korean war service in the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think "USS Missouri Memorial Association Inc" requires its own subsection, and listing the salary ranges of its chief executives puts the article off focus (we don't put captain's pay grades in ship articles, you know). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Good points, I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Question for the FA regulars. I bought and am reading the Stilwell and Butler books. Stilwell is a very thorough and extensive book on the Missouri, and Butler is on the grounding. Some of the comments above were basically that heavy use of or reliance on DANFS is a minus with respect to the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" FA criteria. I'd be happy to add cites to some pages in those books to some items that are cited only to DANFS. My question is: with respect to that FA criteria and it's application here, would it be better to remove the DANFS cites on those or just leave them double cited? North8000 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    @North8000: Sorry for the slow reply and the logged out reply, I’m pulling a double shift tonight and I don’t log in on the iPad, however the answer is that you should double cite. This establishes two separate citations for the information, so if we lose one we can use the other in cases like that to confirm the info. I believe that I had seen Stillwell’s book on Missouri before, it should be several hundred pages of detailed information if I recall correctly…only now that I’m not a student I can’t get back to the library on campus to use the book because the COVID pandemic has it limited to students and staff only at the moment. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:CD89:8DDE:70F1:59CE (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, an immense and thorough book. And it lists about 300 sources that it drew from (including interviews etc.) The only limitation is that it ends approx 1995. At that point the ship was de-comissioned, in Brementon, somewhat open to visitors. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I finished reading the Stillwell book and started adding cites in places where only DANFS was cited. Also based on detailed coverage in Stillwell, fixed what was clearly an error (results of star shell accident) and removed the web site source that had the error and was only used for that item. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC) I added put at least a dozen Stillwell cites in places that previously had only DANFS cites. The DANFOS cited could be removed but per advice above, I did not remove them so DANFS is cited as many times as before, albeit now with less reliance it. I believe that this resolves that issue. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm out of town for work right now but will try to give this a read through when I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm back, will begin a readthrough with any comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    • A good bit of the follow-up list on the FAR talk has been addressed, but there's still about a half-dozen things outstanding on that list - some larger, some smaller. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
      • @Hog Farm:@Nikkimaria: I'm planning on fixing most of them while hoping that others will jump in and beat me to it. But with the backlog crisis at New Page Patrol, I've been spending most of my wiki-minutes there lately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I just fixed the last item on your list on the talk page.North8000 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I've already committed to re-reviewing H.D. and Darjeeling for FARs, but will get back to this one once I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: No hurry, I was just noting that that particular list was done. The lead still needs a lot of work, which I plan on doing over the next few days.North8000 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm finished with my planned work.North8000 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll try to go give it another read-through this week then. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the infobox, which did shorten it by a few lines I think, but I'm not comfortable with removing the entries for motto, badge, etc., without some discussion at WT:Ships. I could be talked into removing the sponsor field, though, as there's been some discussion about that already. Also cleaned up the captions, which including removing alt text which was entirely redundant to the caption, which will be read by screen readers. I suck at alt text, but I invite any and everyone to describe the pictures, preferably in eight words or less (I think that was the old standard).

The bibliography is out of alphabetical order(!) and the cite style is a mess as there's no rhyme or reason for some books to be included in the bibliography while others are full title in the cites. While I'm not all that fond of Garzke & Dulin, I'll probably rewrite the description section using them and Sumrall to replace Conways. I've ordered a copy of Stillwell, and his book on the New Jersey as well, which is probably in just as bad shape as this one, as I think that there's a bit too much DANFS remaining, despite North8000's much-appreciated efforts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a lot of cites which doubled up on the DANFS cites. Per advice received above I did not remove any of the DANFS cites on those. So many of the DANFS cites are "redundant"/ no longer needed and could easily be removed. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
~~The bibliography is alphabetized (someone else fixed it). I've received no contrary advice on leaving in the now-double-cited DANFS-cited items, but removing those would reduce the appearance of amount of dependency on DANFS. From looking at it, the rationale for where the reference info is that when the reference is used only once, the full info is in the first section and when the reference is used multiple times then the individaul cites are in the first section and the full reference info is in the second section. IMO this looks like a good rationale. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the question of Margaret Truman in the info box, regarding info boxes, I'm sort of a "when in doubt, leave it out" guy. But that aside, she had a long history with / interactions with the ship that spanned many decades, and her dad was a strong and powerful (including as president) supporter of the ship, also with many interactions with the ship. So "sponsor" means much more than the usual. Which makes me overall neutral on inclusion in the info box. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I've finished with the description section and have removed the duplicate links. Can I get somebody to read over what I've done and see that it reads reasonably well? And remove the under construction lable if satisfied? I've received Stillwell and will start working over the WW2 section next. One thing that I've seen is that the text uses the ship's name far too often. We need to mix it up more with "she", "the ship", "the battleship", etc., to breakup the monotony.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

On images Let's start with two big things:

  • I can't find the lead image on history.navy.mil after searching all 64 pages of results for "USS Missouri" which is concerning, given the copyright status is based on it being a US Navy image. There certainly are plenty of other images of Missouri on there, though.
  • There are photos of the Missouri in the Korean War conflict, e.g. [14], so it seems odd not to include them.

There's some nice images for various periods, e.g. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] etc.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 18:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, I didn't even think to check sourcing on the images when I was cleaning up the captions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This kind of article is usually fine with images, but a little care never hurts. I'll go through all of them given time, but, well, tail end of COVID. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 18:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    Still working my way through the WW2 section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    I haven't fully checked images because things got on top of me, for the record. Will try to soon. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 12:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    I worked on specific noted items (many are on the talk page associated with this page.) I just did another wrap-up above. I don't have any action items which I'm planning on at the moment. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy, and North8000: no significant amount of editing since August 7; how is this looking? Should we move to FARC just to keep this on track, or is a save in the works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

My own work regarding FAR is basically limited to work on improving the article in specifically noted problem areas. I saw that as being completed. Of course, I could be wrong on that. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, for the reminder, Sandy. I've gotten about halfway through the Korean War section, but things are slowed by having to rewrite the direct quotations(!) from DANFS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I think Sturm is still working through and overhauling the sourcing Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

H.D.Edit

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

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

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

Its a fair nom of an old FAR save and does need to be brought up to standard. The recent FAR driven overhaul of the closely related Imagism[21] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

As an update, am traveling for another week or so, so do not have access to my book sources. Also have ordered [22] which looks promising for expansion. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    I am updating the article with info I find. I don't so much take care on prominent sources (because I don't find them on the subject) but on info I see as notable. But like this it might not be a FA. I hope for Coeil to maybe find some ways to keep it an FA. A personal life section might be good? Or a section where the shifting relationships are better described? As to me that H.D. and Bryher kept being a couple while changing husband and lover is north a section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Ceoil, Paradise Chronicle, how are things looking? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I have added some citation needed templates to unsourced phrases but I am sincerely not so much interested in keeping this an FA. The sources within the article are often rather good looking, though and if someone was interested enough, I assume they'd find the sources matching the phrases. (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    I'm still interested, and will repost here shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    Paradise Chronicle's tags and additions have been most helpful. needs more work but I think doable if a time allowance is given. Will work away and update again here in a week. Paradise, your help would be much appreciated; imo the legacy sections is most lacking. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
    Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    most of the citation issues are fixed, now expanding the text. Will update again over the end of next weekend, when I will feel ready to face the FAR nominator.Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, Paradise Chronicle; am now ready to take feedback. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
    The article is in a far better shape than before, my main concerns were addressed, no more uncited phrases in the article. Thank you Ceoil also for the additional images. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    I can probably read through it over the next week if it needs another set of eyes. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's on my list, too, but things here are slow going due to IRL stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • How are these two thoughts -- in the same sentence -- related? She met Pound in 1901, and attended Bryn Mawr College between 1904 and 1906.
  • I thought innovate was a verb?? championed her as an innovate poet.
  • Why "already" ... no prior context for this ... By this time Pound had already relocated to England,
  • ???? In 1896, hes was appointed Flower Professor of Astronomy
    I can't explain this, copy or paste or something <hangs head, gets coat>. "Hes" and "flower" removed. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    That was added by me, but I made a typo on the hes which meant to be a his. Her father was really the Flower Professor of Astronomy in memory of a Mister Flower.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
  • ???? After she studied at home until 1910.
    Reworded, but intended was "After, she studied...". Doh. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the section heading "H.D. Imagiste" ... we shouldn't repeat the article title in a section heading, and why not just, Imagist?
    • It's not nonsensical, and the couple sources I'm skimming do focus on Pound's "H.D. Imagiste" inscription on her poem mentioned in the section. She also places some importance on that moment. Still, Imagism might be a more descriptive heading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
      • "H.D. Imagiste" is a thing...amongst aficionados; but we are not writing for them. Sect is retitled as "Imagism", but may become "London and Imagism". Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • ???? He was impressed by her awareness of the aspiration's for contemporary poetry and free verse which had been discussing with Aldington, with whom he had shared plans to reform through tanka and the brevity of haiku. ????
    • Completely re-written as "...(Pound had) already begun to meet with other poets at the Eiffel Tower restaurant in Soho to discuss plans to reform contemporary poetry through free verse, the brevity of the tanka and haiku forms, and the removal of all unnecessary verbiage from poetry." Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Stopped there, do not understand what is happening here, but unless much more work is planned, it looks like we should be moving to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers does this article interest you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
It sure does! How can I help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
See my post just above ... I started at the top and found all sorts of problems. Thanks for helping! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I fixed a few (hopefully). In general, I think the copy-editing/clarity issues alone are significant. The citations themselves need some fixing up. I'll dig into it. I have no informed opinion on whether fixes can happen during FAR or if a move to FARC is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
With you, Ceoil and Victoriaearle on it (3x competence), theoretically a move to FARC should be avoidable. Thanks again for helping out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
To update, Firefangledfeathers and Victoria have done a lot of heavy lifting re prose, and I'm combing through. Will ping again when ready, and thanks so much for the review. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been working from the bottom up and very slowly (well, that's an understatement!). I am familiar with H. D's story - at least the early years, but came to it via the sources to do with Pound and it's better to get her out from his shadow where she's lingered (as Ceoil has suggested), so there's more reading involved. The article makes sense to me, so maybe it's just an issue of rewording? Will continue to watch to see how it develops. P.s I don't see this in FARC territory at all. Victoria (tk) 13:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, so now I understand why I found so many problems at the top! Thx, Victoria ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks like it's under control and others are working the page so I'll go ahead and step away now. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Deservedly after so much tinkering, fixing and smoothing. Your edits were significant improvements. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I can't decipher the problem here, left an inline comment:

  • Aldington, Richard; Gates, Norman. Richard Aldington: An Autobiography in Letters. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. ISBN ‎978-0-2710-0832-5 Parameter error in Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Missing ISBN.: Invalid ISBN.

What's odd is that it links to the correct ISBN on Amazon, so what is the error? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Same prob with the (different isbn) on amazon.co.uk. I let it in assuming it was a local to wiki bug (these things happen, as we are seeing with the duplinks tool. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The template documentation for the isbn template says "Since invalid ISBNs are sometimes used in publications, it is possible to disable the validity check for individual ISBNs given as parameters. In order to do so, add invalid?=yes (with ? replaced by the parameter number 1 to 9) to the template. In this case, the article will be added to Category:Pages with listed invalid ISBNs." so this ain't necessarily a problem and there appears to be a work-around to kill the error message. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I suspect it's a Wiki bug ... but can we sort the editor/author issue I left in the inline comment ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'll look into it after work if nobody else addresses it first - I have an idea what's going on but it may not be right (it could be a collection of writings by Aldington edited by Gates). Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    The error suppression worked: [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    Great. One to remember as has happened before. The sources is now listed as Gates only, as its his introduction that is being used as a source. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
    But irritating is that it is still listed in an error category, that will cause it to show on FA error report ... so I added back the note ... <grrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Which version of Levenson is being used ? The ISBN listed goes here (New Directions publisher, 1983, a different book), while the citation indicates Cambridge University Press, 1986, which has a different ISBN: [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. The quote its supporting appears in a lot of books; am going to try and remove Levenson and cite to another (in use) source. The list of sources is anyway getting too long, as not all are core. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Now reff'd to King (1981), a book that is specifically about H.D. and Pound rather than a gneral survey of Imagism (and correspondingly doesn't throw up an isbn error). Nice spot! Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To note, I imported text from Victoria and Sarah's work on Ezra Pound in this diff. I think I followed att, but mentioning here if further needs to be done as this is the place for confessions. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

'Tis good ... you attributed in edit summary, per WP:CWW, so I don't have to go and add a {{Copied}} to talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Notes that don't match Sources:

Missing:

  • Blau 1981
  • Chisholm 1992
  • Duncan 2011
  • Evans 2010
  • Guest 1985
  • Harrell 2010
  • Hughes 1990
  • Morris 2003
  • Taylor 2001

Short note does not match Source listing:

  • Lohr Martz, (1983), p. 299

Years don't match

  • McCabe

Inconsistent format in short note:

  • Sword, Helen. (1995), pp. 347–62 (last name only ?)

I had to put these sources into a spreadhseet to check this; if the notes were converted to sfns, errors would be caught easily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Still on the docket. I'll need a bit of time after Ceoil's pass to work on that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
But the errors will still have to be sorted ... McCabe is all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for the list. I've fixed a couple of mistakes: fixed the transcription mistake for McCabe (2022 > 2002); removed the first name from Martz & Sword. The following sources are currently not used, hence not showing up in footnotes:

  • Blau DuPlessis 1981
  • Chisholm 1992
  • Duncan 2011
  • Evans 2010
  • Guest is quoted in Kakutani (NYT), otherwise not used
  • Harrell 2010
  • Hughes 1990
  • Morris 2003
  • Taylor 2002

Once the lit review and reading is done they can be removed. I've not been doing any of the reading but there's a fair amount and don't want to presume at this point that a source will or will not be used. Ceoil can speak to that. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks muchly Victoria. As an update

  • Chisholm 1992 replaced by Lucas 1993 (Lucas is a review of Chisholm's book), and incorporated
  • Duncan 2011, Harrell 2010, Morris 2003 & Taylor 2002 removed having re-read on jstor
  • Added from Hughes 1990 Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Guest and Evans removed. DuPlessis 1981 incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: I would very much like Firefangledfeathers to begin the conversion to snf if they are still interested and have time, and SandyGeorgia, Paradise Chronicle and Victoria to begin a final review when they have a chance. Thanks all (incl Nikkimaria for endless patience, eeek). Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil, I have to get through Joan of Arc; ping me after Firefangledfeathers is done if I forget to get here next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
np Sandy, and youre help/view is appreciated as always. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! I'll get started. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I have added some info on her daughter Perdita, who is described at the section Legacy. I usually add info on family and children in personal life, but in the case of H.D. I am not sure if that works as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Ping received. Will take a run through when I can. Victoria (tk) 19:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Victoriaearle pls ping me when you're done so I won't get in your way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know when I can get to it and am happy to go last, after all the changes have been made, etc. If Ceoil is traveling it's possible I might be able to address points that raised during his absence. Victoria (tk) 19:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
P.s regarding the ref reformatting - I've not looked closely but noted that Barnstone is "Barnstone-Doolittle" in the short note. We're not citing Doolittle, we're citing Barnstone. It worked in the unformatted refs, but with templates we may need to split out Barnstone into the separate chapters, "Introduction", "Readers Notes", "Life" to get it right. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
On the radar! Trilogy is not the only book affected by this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Great. Sorry if it sounds as though I'm being picky. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
No apology needed! I went with a style that works for me but am open to feedback. I'm now done (I hope) with converting the references and citations. I'm not sure who is up next exactly, so I'm pinging both Victoriaearle and SandyGeorgia. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, an update on the unused sources. It's now just:

  • Evans 2010
  • H.D. 1979
  • Laity 1996
  • and Lucas 1993

. Laity seems like the main missed opportunity here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Victoria may be out for health reasons for the rest of the week; the remaining items, and those on talk, are probably best left for her return, although I'll start looking in as I get time. Great work so far !! Thanks for doing the tedious stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry Firefangledfeathers, I got sidetracked. But I've been watching and will try to get back to this in the next few days. I definitely need another read through and, if possible, address any of the issues on the talk page. It's possible we'll have to wait for Ceoil to surface. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Please ping me to review after you're done (and depending on when Ceoil surfaces). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Will try to get to it during the week. Victoria (tk) 21:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Just for the record am resurfacing, and delighted with all the work since. Trying to catch up. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I think this needs to be closed one way or another. For happy reasons, I'm probably not around for the next few weeks. However, think Firefangled and Victoria have done great work, the page is much better, weather it retains the star or not, the work was not in vain; we now have a vastly improved article - to acknowledge the heavy duty work by both. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll do a read-through then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm free to work on any issues that come up in your read-through. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius thinks they'll be back with is in about a week to overhaul the Selected works and maybe some other improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Nikki is always very patience, but to be fair to her nerves.....22:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to read through this over the weekend with an eye to seeing if this is ready to keep, although I have to admit that the only poetry I've read in the last year or so is the book of Psalms. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Starting in since Hog Farm is busy.

  • Four HarvRef errors still present; you can install this script to view them (Evans, Laity, Lucas, and H.D. (1979). Pearson, Norman Holmes; King, Michael (eds.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A range of 60 pages to verify this text seems odd: "Japanese and Far East verse became early sources for the Imagists, and Doolittle often visited the print room at the British Museum with Aldington and the curator and poet Laurence Binyon to view Nishiki-e prints and other examples of traditional Japanese verse.[22]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is Imagist uppercase here? (It's been a long time, but I feel like I already asked that question.) co-founded the avant-garde Imagist group of poets SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Anecdotally, most sources I've seen keep Imagist capitalized, and treat it like an adjectival or derivative-noun form of the apparently proper noun 'Imagism'. If you'd like me to be more rigorous about a source review looking at caps, I can do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
      Firefangledfeathers no need; just checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This sentence hits me very weird in the lead. While it may be clarified as I get in to the body of the article, what makes it strange is that psychologists should not have friendships with their patients: "She befriended Sigmund Freud during the 1930s as a patient looking to understand both her war trauma and bisexuality." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hyphen on five-decade career? "During her five decade career," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Family of five sons? The family had five sons and a daughter ... family with five sons? "Hilda was their only daughter in a family of five sons." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Nervous breakdown is an undefined medical term. The freely available source says "health issues"; what does the other source say? "due to poor grades and a near nervous breakdown". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Removed. The sources all treat this differently, and the most common treatment is not to mention the breakdown at all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Uncited ? "and by the time Pound left for Europe in 1908 the engagement had been called off." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Silverstein mentions at least two engagements between 1905 and 1908. In the hopes of avoiding proseline, I mention the engagements but not the years. I also dropped Pound's travel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • We have her in Europe in 1908, but suddenly back in Pennsylvania in 1910, with no transition in between? "and by the time Pound left for Europe in 1908 the engagement had been called off. In 1910, Doolitle started a relationship with Frances Josepha Gregg, a young female art student at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts.[12]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • It was Pound in Europe, not Doolittle. Should be less confusing now that Pound's travel is out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm lost. "On recommendation by Pound, she published her children's stories on astronomy in a syndicated Presbyterian newsletter, which are now lost;" On Pound's recommendation? At Pound's urging? the newsletter is now lost, or the stories are now lost? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Pound" dropped (sources mention Pound's father being part of the newspaper connection, but it's not important), and the whole bit rewritten. Bryer and Roblyer had trouble finding much of the pre-1913 work, but they don't go as far as "lost", and this was back in 1969. I removed "lost" for now; maybe Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius can weigh on this, but I don't want to ping them until I know their thesis is done!
  • Can the part after the semi-colon not be worked in earlier, with the now lost a separate and more clear separate sentence? "On recommendation by Pound, she published her children's stories on astronomy in a syndicated Presbyterian newsletter, which are now lost;[4][14] she had these and others published before 1913 mostly under the name Edith Gray.[15]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That confused me because I suddenly thought they were in New York; can the city be added? "Pound had already begun to meet with other poets at the Eiffel Tower restaurant in Soho to discuss ideas for reforming contemporary poetry," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • SandyGeorgia, could you give this a re-read now that the end of §Early life has been rewritten? To me, it seems clear that all of this section takes place in London. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
      I'm going to re-start from the top, on talk ... I found the top quite confusing, obviously :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't know what this means; a metronome is an apparatus that sets a tempo, don't know what this is saying; "compose poetry in the sequence of the musical phrase, not in the sequence of metronome." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • This was a slightly-off, unclearly marked direct quote. I've turned it into a block quote and fixed the wording. It wouldn't surprise me if readers are still confused, but at least they'll know it's the Imagists' fault and not Wikipedia's. I think they're just expressing an embrace of free verse and a rejection of iambic pentameter and the like. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • How are these two thoughts related ??? "to view Nishiki-e prints and other examples of traditional Japanese verse.[22] During a 1912 conversation with Pound, she told him that she found her full name old fashioned and "quaint";" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yikes, can this be somehow broken up (I ran out of breath reading it), and the way dates are handled is inconsistent within the sentence. "She worked on the plays by Euripides, publishing in 1916 a translation of choruses from Iphigeneia at Aulis, in 1919 a translation of choruses from Iphigeneia at Aulis and Hippolytus, an adaptation of Hippolytus called Hippolytus Temporizes (1927), a translation of choruses from The Bacchae and Hecuba (1931), and Euripides' Ion (1937) a loose translation of Ion.[32]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I cut it for now. If a short statement on her translation work is needed, it should be in the next subsection and be sourced better. If the bit about her continuing alliance with Imagism is needed, it should be restored at the end of this subsection and be soured better. I feel pretty good about the way the section reads without this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • We go from here, to an excerpt from a poem without being told what that excerpt is or why it's there: "and her work later appeared in Aldington's Imagist Anthology 1930."

I'm stopping there, as this is more than I should have put on the main FAR page, and will resume later on the talk page with the World War I section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. I knocked out the easy ones as noted above. I'm sure there's more that needs to be reworked in the lead and have been hoping to leave that to the end. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Once you're through these (lead last), I'll continue on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Once Sandy's satisfied, ping me and I'll take a look. Sorry I could get to this earlier, I got busy last week. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
A couple more done, with some judgment calls made. See comments above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Rest are done! Please review and let me know. My eyes are on the talk page for the next set when you're ready. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
On it today ... at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2#SG comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Good progress made on talk page, but there are still a few bits that need to be tidied when Ceoil can get to them (not right away), and we'll ping in Hog Farm for a look once Ceoil has gotten to that, and Firefangledfeathers has had a pass as well ... so Hog Farm you're off the hook for a week or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Josquin des PrezEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Life section
    • Need to take another look at the 1st paragraph of Birth and background; last paragraph of Ferrara; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life
    • Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left(might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)
    • The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
    • The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
  • Music
    • Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
    • Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
    • 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
  • Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
  • What has been done already:
    • Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
    • Entirely new Portraits section has been added
    • Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
    • Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
    • The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
    • Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
  • My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Aza24, are you still working on things here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes! There are mainly three sections left to be fixed up/updated: 1) Overview (in music); 2) Secular music; and 3) Influence and reputation. The masses section will need a few additional refs, and the Milan and travels as well as Milan and France are missing a little bit of information. I recently updated the motets section and began adding refs to the Masses one. I'm aiming for completion in the next 2–3 weeks (overcompensating with that estimate, though, and it will hopefully be done sooner). Aza24 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Aza24, any update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Music section done! Life almost done, and legacy will need probably three fresh paragraphs to replace the current one. After this, the lead will need a bit of tweaking, and then it should be good for WP purposes. Aza24 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Aza24, update? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Very close, aiming for completion by the end of this week. Aza24 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
The two remaining sections that need major work are 'Milan and France' and 'Condé-sur-l'Escaut', though the latter is about half way done. The Masses section and the Legacy may need some clean up as well, but these two are comparatively less pressing than the other two. Aza24 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Life section is pretty much done. Just cleaning and copy-editing now. Aza24 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
6 August update: I still need to clean up the Canonic masses, Cantus-firmus masses and the Secular music sections, but no major work is needed there. After that I will finish up the Legacy section and should be finished. Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
22 August update: took a brief break from this. All that's really left is the Legacy section, which I will be finishing in the coming days. After this I will do some clean up and copy editing, probably a bit of trimming too, as the article size is really getting up there. Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, everything is pretty much done and I managed to keep the article length below the recommended max of 10,000 (currently at 9,500). Now is just a matter of copy editing clean up and such. Aza24 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I will start reviewing on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Progressed to the point of fine tuning prose; I've pinged Ceoil, and if he has no time or interest, I will also ping (next) John. I'll do my full readthrough after the art-knowledgeable are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Aza24, Can you take a look at the structure/toc, its really long atm - Life/birth/Youth/Early career/Milan and travels/Rome- and would be better summarised. Would do myself, but late in the night and exhausted, night. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit hesitant to cut much more, especially since I already brought it under 10,000 (for the recommended proze length) from what was once around ~12,000. Is there any particular section that stands out? I fear the complexities and uncertainties of his biography often require extra explanation. Aza24 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the need is to cut rather combine ... the TOC is what is long and rambling, and some of those section headings can be combined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I combined a few; life section is now down from eight headers to five. Perhaps better? Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Comments from JohnEdit

Sandy pinged me here for a copyedit. I've only read the article and talk page, and this page, at this point, and started a few very gentle copyedits. I will try hard to put some more hours in over the weekend. It's an interesting and important article, of whose subject I had barely heard, and there's a lot to read and take in. I can see the possibility for some very careful and judicious pruning. If you want to see what I mean, please see my edits to Joan of Arc. I look forward to working with you all. John (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Josquin had hired at least 15 procurators to sort out his inheritance; this and other contextual evidence strongly suggests that by then he was very wealthy. This would explain numerous oddities later in his life, including his ability to travel so often, his demand for an expensive salary and freedom from constantly composing greatly demanded mass cycles like his contemporaries Isaac and Ludwig Senfl.

I don't get it. If he was very wealthy, why would he demand a high salary? What does the source say? John (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Musicians of the time were mostly servants to their employers, and would have very little negotiating power on matters such as salaries. Josquin, already being rich, didn’t need to work much and thus did not need to take jobs that paid badly just to have a job to begin with, if that makes sense. I will try and check Fallows soon, but my copy is back at the library; I screenshotted quite a few chapters, so hopefully this information is from one of those. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
John are you still working here, or is it time to ping in next reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge Sandy. Sorry, real life got in the way, I have only started here. I will try to get to it tonight. John (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
John, I've clarified that sentence now. I think the original was too confusing, so opted for including a different but related piece of evidence Fallows uses. Aza24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Please forgive the slow pace here. I have an ill partner and have not had as much time as I might have liked to look at this. On reading and rereading the article, it's very well-constructed and sourced, and seems likely to be comprehensive.

One thing I keep running into is the huge uncertainty surrounding events. This reminds me of one of my favourite FARs six years ago, Vincent van Gogh. Modernist, Ceoil, and Victoriaearle, brave souls, were trying to bring this article on arguably the world's most famous artist, on whom everybody has an opinion, to FA. I started as quite a critical reviewer, and ended up as a co-nom I got so into the improvement process. As much as I love his art, the thing I was really interested in was how we covered his self-inflicted injury of 1888. There is conflicting evidence about how much of his ear he cut off, and it has been hotly debated ever since. This was the discussion, and here is how it currently looks (stripped of references and links):

After an altercation on the evening of 23 December 1888, Van Gogh returned to his room where he seemingly heard voices and either wholly or in part severed his left ear with a razor[note 1] causing severe bleeding. He bandaged the wound, wrapped the ear in paper and delivered the package to a woman at a brothel Van Gogh and Gauguin both frequented.

The experience of working with such great writers and editors, and looking together at the sources, made me realise on a very deep level that all experience is subjective, and all truth is consensual. As Wikipedians, all we can do is dispassionately evaluate the sources, then try to reflect them proportionally and fairly. A key thing is avoiding constructions that give undue weight to (usually) the latter clause. I think the article deals fairly well with the difficulty of saying "X said a, but then Y said b", sounding like Y is right and X is wrong. Unless that's explicitly what a source says. At the same time, we need to tell the story, and the general reader (who this article is supposed to be pitched at) might lose interest if there is too much "he said, she said".

It's one of the things I've been looking at as I trim at the prose. Here's an example from Josquin des Prez that I haven't touched yet:

The well-known letter from Artiganova is a unique reference to Josquin's personality, which the musicologist Patrick Macey interprets as meaning Josquin was "difficult colleague and that he took an independent attitude towards producing music for his patrons". The Josquin scholar Edward Lowinsky connected his purportedly 'difficult' behavior with musical talent, and used the letter as evidence that Josquin's contemporaries recognized his 'genius'. Differently, musicologist Rob Wegman expressed hesitancy in connecting Josquin's supposed personality to 'genius', and questions whether meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such an anecdote. In a later publication, Wegman notes the largely unprecedented nature of such a position and warns that "yet of course the letter could equally well be seen to reflect the attitudes and expectations of its recipient, Ercole d'Este".

How can we balance the prerogatives of comprehensiveness, fairness to various scholarly views on uncertain facts, and telling the story concisely? More footnotes? Maybe. I have to come back to this in the morning. Thanks for writing such an interesting article, and for reading this long comment. John (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Though I understand your concern, I'm actually rather hesitant getting into the debate on this letter, which I feel would get too detailed too quickly for this general overview article. The meaning of it has, of course, been heavily debated, but the main two camps are the same, those that think conclusions can be drawn from it, and those that do not. Lowinsky is certainly the leader of the former group, and Wegman is perhaps the most vocal in the second, though admittedly less influential. Indeed the traditional narrative of using this as evidence for Josquin being a difficult colleague is the most widespread one, which I hoped to demonstrate by including both Macey and Lowinsky for that side, and just Wegman for the other. Aza24 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ Theo and his wife, Gachet and his son, and Signac, who saw Van Gogh after the bandages were removed, maintained that only the earlobe had been removed. According to Doiteau and Leroy, the diagonal cut removed the lobe and probably a little more. The policeman and Rey both claimed Van Gogh severed the entire outer ear; Rey repeated his account in 1930, writing a note for novelist Irving Stone and including a sketch of the line of the incision.

I've finished my first run of copyedits; again, apologies for the slow pace. Any comments? John (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Will take a look later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi aZa, am following this with interest, but at times the hedging on uncertainty is confusing eg (now copyedited) .."perhaps in the mid-to-late 1480s possibly may have gone to Paris". Or something. Its a bit like me saying: aging hipster, in my early late-40s :) Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Any feedback? I am chugging away at trying to copyedit the prose, but I am not a subject expert, even less than I was on VvG. Please inspect my edits to make sure I am not altering the meaning (simplifying is ok, to a point) or being untrue to the sources. John (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I will read through your edits in the nearish future (tomorrow?) - thank you for your copyedit; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I've look through all of John and Ceoil's copy edits—happy to see a huge improvement in prose quality from the efforts of you both. I made some minor adjustments to preserve some meanings. Re this edit, I am somewhat uncomfortable with removing the line "Though its dating was debated in the past". It is certainly clunky and can be better phrased (and indeed, I'm not sure how to), but the dating of Ave Maria ... Virgo serena was for a long time a vicious and extended debate, so I feel like such detail is important here. Aza24 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Thought about this further, and am concluding that having the preexisting note about the piece duplicated beside the sentence is fitting enough. Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Vagueness (from the France sect):
    "recently" found documents
    Scholars "long" assumed
    Here is an excellent counterpoint sentance as a guide: "Josquin was probably in France during the early 16th century; documents found 2008 indicate that he visited Troyes twice between 1499 and 1501". Aza24 your doing great here. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed... have fixed the given examples, and am double-checking for more. SandyGeorgia, John, Ceoil, Antandrus how are we feeling about this now? I'm leaning very close to a keep, but would rather address any remaining concerns before declaring myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It's coming along! Searching for the text string "possibl" returns 23 hits. That seems too many for one article. Without getting into elegant variation, are there other ways of saying this? What do the sources do? John (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Yes - and "may have" has 15 hits. It's rather the nature of the thing, where so much is probable, so little is certain, and so very very much is "maybe kind of more or less" at various levels. Elegant variation seems to be the way most musicologists handle this. (Thank you for your excellent copyedit!!) Antandrus (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    (Aza24, I'm reading through it now and it's very, very good) Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks!
    Actually I'm surprised that there's not more instances of those words. Some sources, particularly Fallows, have ample room to discuss uncertainties, and thus do not need to condense such information like we do (which results in the frequent use of words like 'possibility' and such). I looked at the ones in the article, and can see little way out other than elegant variation. Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Down to 8 "possibl"s, three of which are in the location table and one in a quotation. I don't mind "may have" so much, as it's more of a verb tense construction, and "X may have Yed" is generally shorter and less clunky than "It is possible that X Yed." Just as well, as they are up to 17! Obviously we can't reduce style to numbers like this but I am getting happier now with how the prose flows. John (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    My latest round. I will post a longer rationale for some of these edits later, but I need to take a break now. John (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • A singer himself, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include... There's a name for this; what is the subject of the sentence? Josquin or his works? --> Josquin was a singer himself; his compositions are chiefly vocal, and include...
  • Its structure has been used as evidence for dating it both in the 1480s and the early 1500s, as the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as signs of both immaturity and also mastery. seemed unnecessarily complex so I simplified it to Its structure has been used to date it to both the 1480s and the early 1500s, depending on whether the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as a sign of immaturity or mastery. I think it's easier to parse this way, but does it still carry the intended meaning?
  • Printing technology was in its early stages was a fascinating snippet, and I would love to see it fleshed out, perhaps with dates and numbers if the sources support that. As a standalone remark it seems out of place, so I removed it, for now.
  • In writing polyphonic settings of psalms, Josquin was a pioneer, and psalm settings form a large proportion of the motets of his later years. Few composers prior to him had written polyphonic psalm settings. Are we saying (almost?) the same thing twice? Edited to Few composers before Josquin had written polyphonic psalm settings, and these form a large proportion of the motets of his later years.
  • Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes that "As recently as the 1990s, no one would have disagreed with that statement. However, in the early 21st century, things are not so certain". I'm not a fan of long quotes unless their exact language adds something to the reader's understanding of the subject, which I didn't think this one did. So I summarised this to Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes growing dissent from that position in the early 21st century.
  • We had a very light sprinkling of typos ("wroted") and the usual little tucks and nips. Down from 10,866 words (including notes but not sources) to 10,579. It's such a complex and nuanced subject that it will be difficult to simplify it further without losing essential shades of meaning. Indeed, you may feel that some of my changes have already gone too far. I hope not. I'll be interested to see what you think, Aza24, Antandrus, SandyGeorgia, or anybody else. John (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

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

Komodo dragonEdit

Notified: bibliomaniac15, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Indonesia, [25]

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns relating to comprehensiveness, datedness, odd and undue prose, and poor sourcing. More information was given in the initial talkpage notification. CMD (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Move to FARC no improvement. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC minor edits since nomination, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, nothing really happening to address issues. Hog Farm Talk 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist (nominator). The comprehensiveness in particular I think would take a reasonable amount of work. CMD (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Greater ManchesterEdit

Notified: [26], 7 May 2022

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues with summary style, length, citation needed, and failed verification; see the talk page notice for details. (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Move to FARC lack of improvement to address issues, outstanding cleanup tags (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC no edits since nomination, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - issues are remaining. Hog Farm Talk 12:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Flag of IndiaEdit

Notified: SpacemanSpiff, Nichalp, SBC-YPR, Zscout370, Yashthepunisher, Ambuj.Saxena, WP India, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in October 2021

Review sectionEdit

This older featured article promotion last formally reviewed in 2010 does not meet the current FA standards. There is uncited text and many of the web sources are of questionable reliability, such as Flags of the World or flaggenlexicon.de. Additionally, the manufacturing section needs rewritten to reflect that code amendment allows for the flags to be made out of polyester now. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There's far too much clean up required at this point and a lot of junk has also crept in over the past few years. In addition, I'd placed a tag to update based on the new flag code. At this point I'm also not online enough to focus on cleaning up this article and bringing it up to FA standards either, and therefore it would need attention from someone else familiar with the subject. I was thinking of bringing it here earlier on, but good that Hog Farm beat me to it.—SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Move to FARC lack of improvement to address issues. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC: minimal edits since nomination, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, needs a fair bit of work. Hog Farm Talk 12:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode IslandEdit

Notified: various (see User:Buidhe/test), Dec 18, 2021

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues with referencing (and lack thereof) and datedness, see the talk page for details. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Citation 133 is a bit ridiculous. An absurd number of different sources are synthesised to reach the given number. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
    Check now. I went in and found some more sources to include. If you have any other higher quality sources, I can incorporate those as well. Louiedog (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Loodog, thanks for your edit. The first order of business is fixing all of the 21 citation needed tags either by finding a source or removing the information, if it does not belong in the article. The second priority is updating outdated information; most of the citations dated 2007 will need updating.
    While going through the article, I also found some coverage gaps:
    • No info on pre-colonial history
    • Insufficient information on local politics and government system, apart from some UNDUE content on particular officeholders that I removed. The article should contain info on what political party dominates local elections, and possibly info on which issues are prominent in local politics.
    (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I went a removed a few, since many were dubious cite needed's. In many cases the information was already supported by the source provided, or there was a cite needed for a subtitle for a graphic, when the graphic itself included its own source. In case of Hasbro, requiring a source that they are headquartered in Pawtucket seemed ridiculous, given that it's a non-controversial claim sourced in that article's lede. Louiedog (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, so I'm noticing a lot of these "citation needed" are issues that can be fixed very easily by going into the relevant articles and using those sources. That's going to be a lot more productive than just putting up "cite needed" tags. And again, a number of these tags were added needlessly, as the information was included in sources already cited. We're just not doing in-line citations every sentence. It would save a lot of trouble just to look more carefully at the sourcing info before throwing the tags up. Louiedog (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    Loodog I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article? You cannot assume that the source actually verifies the fact unless you check it yourself.
    Since this is a FA, the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation, except the lead. Being sourced in another article, or covered in a source cited elsewhere in the article, does not count. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    >I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article?
    Yes, I am responsibly sourcing the information in keeping with wikipedia policies. I do appreciate your flagging some of the content people added that seemed like people just adding their favorite rugby team, which had no sources and no evidence of notability.
    >the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation
    Yes and it has that. I was actually able to remove all the [citation needed] tags on the basis of either (a) fact was sourced earlier in the paragraph, (b) fact was Wikipedia:Common knowledge, a simple non-controversial observation from a public property, (c) fact did not merit inclusion and shouldn't have been there in the first place. For everything in category (a), I have gone in to confirm that the fact was indeed supported by the source. In general, doing that investigation before adding a [citation needed] tag will just save us all a lot of trouble. You can check the article's past - before the article achieved FA status in the first place, there was a comprehensive review of the article's sources. The only pieces worth worrying about is the new content added before then, but the article's history section, for example, was mature years ago. Louiedog (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Relying on "common knowledge" or sources cited elsewhere to verify the article content is not acceptable for FAs.
    All of the places I added citation needed tags are places that actually require an inline citation if the article is to maintain its FA listing. Since the purpose of this review is to facilitate improvements to cause the article to meet the FA criteria , it is unhelpful to remove the tags without providing an inline citation to a high-quality reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Common knowledge is clearly defined above. E.g. The fact that an "amphitheater and riverwalks line the river's banks" doesn't require a citation. "Interstate 95 serves as a physical barrier between the city's commercial core and neighborhoods such as Federal Hill and the West End." likewise.
    Many of the [citation needed] tags seemed sloppily thrown up, just for the purposes of having the tags up there. Everything is already in-line cited per standards:
    1. E.g. there was a [citation needed] tag apparently on Providence being one of the "earliest towns" in Colonial America at the end of the sentence, despite there being a direct citation for that claim 3 words prior.
    2. The source for "Providence hosted some of the largest manufacturing plants in the country, including Brown & Sharpe, Nicholson File, and Gorham Manufacturing Company." was the same source that had been cited at the top of that very paragraph, 2 sentences prior.
    3. "The city offices moved into Providence City Hall in 1878." was also drawing on the same source, isn't a controversial claim, and could easily been additionally sourced (which I did) by doing into the City Hall article, which was already linked.
    4. "Another 6% of the city has multiracial ancestry. American Indians and Pacific Islanders make up the remaining 0.9%" again the source was the same source that had been used 1 sentence prior.
    5. The claim that "It is the capital of Rhode Island, so the city's economy additionally consists of government services.[citation needed]" seems like one of the easiest things in the world to verify and is unlikely to be false. State capitals are common knowledge if ever there were and the idea that a state capital has jobs in government service? Still, I went in and found a source.
    6. Hasbro needing a citation for its headquarters being in Pawtucket. Again, I'm not sure who would challenge this.
    7. "The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island is located downtown across from Providence City Hall adjacent to Kennedy Plaza". See: Wikipedia:Common knowledge
    The purpose of citation needed tags is to flag something for attention and give the contributor a chance to find a source, especially for dubious or controversial facts likely to be challenged. Otherwise, to have a "fact" removed. Throwing the tags on material that's already adequately sourced to wikipedia standards does not improve the article. I'm open to any other places you believe lack sourcing, but all the tags I saw were superfluous and inaccurate. Louiedog (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure why you wouldn't then just move the location of the reference link then, rather than typing all this. If there is content, I don't expect it to be from a previous reference, without some type of indication.
    Regardless, I have moved some of the refs to match with their appropriate content and added some additional refs to [citation needed]s you had previously removed. I hope this satiates everyone involved. Skipple 21:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate your work on this. Hopefully, we're all happy now. Louiedog (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hey Budhe, how about discussing here or on the article's talk page before going in and revert warring on that article being contested? That's a great way to draw this out longer. Louiedog (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    What revert warring? (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    You made this edit. Louiedog (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    I added citation needed tags to statements, after noting repeatedly on here that they required citations. I guess you had previously removed them, however, I doubt that anyone else would consider this a case of edit warring. Anyway, it does not seem like you or any other editor is interested in bringing the article up to meet the FA criteria, so I guess we'll have to Move to FARC (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    What are you talking about? I sourced every [citation needed] you raised. Louiedog (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

First cursory glance only:

  • MOS:SANDWICH, holy terror of a long infobox, MOS:ACCIM placement of images.
  • Considerable overlinking: you can install this script to review: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
  • Listy text that can be rewritten to organized prose/paragraphs, see for example Neighborhoods.
  • Hidden text in the climate section.
  • Sourcing and datedness review needed, sample.
  • Why does the table in the Crime section say 2019 when it's based on 2013 data ?
  • The Economy section appears dated, self-sources, and lacking context or recent info. It contains a graph based on 2022 data that is not covered at all in the article.
  • This looks OR-ish: Much of Providence culture is synonymous with the culture of Rhode Island as a whole.
  • This is cited to 2004: Providence also shares Rhode Island's affinity for coffee, with the most coffee and doughnut shops per capita of any city in the country.[94]
  • This is really dubious, wonder about the source, and dated. And "reputed"? Providence is also reputed to have the highest number of restaurants per capita of major U.S. cities,[95]
  • Another dubious 2007 source: many of which are founded or staffed by Johnson & Wales University graduates.[96]

I stopped there. Place articles require careful tending over time, and constant updating; this article doesn't appear to have received that, and I concur with Buidhe that a Move to FARC is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC per Sandy's findings. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include style, sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Swedish emigration to the United StatesEdit

Notified: various, Dec 2021

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues I noticed last year: "The article has some issues with MOS, especially inconsistent referencing. Some citation needed tags. The lead is too long compared to the article body. There is also a striking gap in coverage in that the effects of the emigration on Sweden are not discussed at all." None except lead has been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies is working on this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADraken_Bowser&type=revision&diff=1108666365&oldid=1107800599 see discussion. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC no work in more than 2 weeks, need to keep it moving. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, stalled, citation tags still present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Battle of CeresoleEdit

Notified: Kirill Lokshin, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject France, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Italy, 2022-03-31,

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns listed on the talk page about the overreliance and reliability of the Oman source. Concerns with the source were raised in the article's FAC, and the overreliance concern was raised in 2007 and 2008 on the article's talk page, and mentioned again in March 2022. I am opening this review to see if editors more familiar in this subject area can evaluate Oman's inclusion and/or find new sources to include in the article. I did a quick search databases and found potential new sources; I'm happy to list them below if anyone is interested in evaluating them and improving the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll update the article with newer sources over the next few days. I have the following on hand:
  • Jones, Archer. The Art of War in the Western World. 1987.
  • Knecht, R. J. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I. 1994.
  • Mallet, Michael and Christine Shaw. The Italian Wars, 1494–1559. 2012.
  • Miller, Douglas. The Landsknechts. 1976.
  • Potter, David. Renaissance France at War. 2008.
  • Rogers, Clifford J. (ed.) The Military Revolution Debate. 1995.
  • Sherer, Idan. The Scramble for Italy: Continuity and Change in the Italian Wars, 1494–1559. 2021.
  • Turnbull, Stephen. The Art of Renaissance Warfare. 2006.
Z1720, if there are any other potential sources you've been able to identify, that information would be much appreciated. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to this Kirill. Here's some sources I found in academic journals. This isn't my specialty so I cannot evaluate the usefulness of these sources:
Those are what I found in a search through the databases on WP:LIBRARY. I didn't search Google Scholar. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kirill Lokshin: are you still planning on editing this article? Is there anything others can do to help? Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Z1720, thanks for the reminder; I have the updates drafted, and will add them to the article tomorrow. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Kirill, are you still planning on doing this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like I'm going to have any bandwidth for it at this point. My apologies. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC: Last edit was in March. A move to FARC doesn't stop improvements from being made to the article, nor does it prevent a potential keep designation later. Z1720 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, per Kirill. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, with regret. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

IridiumEdit

Notified: FAC nominator indeffed years ago and not notified, Itub, Stone, Cryptic C62, Materialscientist, Wbuchma, Mav, WP Elements, WP Geology, WP Rocks and minerals, noticed August 5

Review sectionEdit

Back on August 5, I noted issues on talk with datedness, lead issues, failed verification, and poor sourcing. While this resulted in the article being pulled from the TFA schedule, the issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comments from Graeme Bartlett: Some things are missing
  • We need an update as to prices and production or use figures to the present date.
  • Also has there been any new isotopes discovered in the last 20 years?
  • The metal working section just seems historical. How do people work it nowadays? What do jewelers do? How are crucibles made?
  • How is 192Ir produced?
  • How much iridium is in igneous rocks, including the enriched ones? How much concentration in the mantle? And re there any guess as to its concentration in the core?
  • Has iridium been detected in any stars? How is it made? (is it binary neutron star mergers?)
  • There is no popular culture section, but please check if there are secondary references for use of "iridium" in culture of any kind. (books games plays music)
  • Lesser issues: http://www.platinum.matthey.com/uploaded_files/Pt2008/08_complete_publication.pdf is a dead link (it's the only one I checked so there may be more?).
  • much of the property information in the infobox is unreferenced. Or even if it is by clicking through, is hard to locate references.
  • A photo of an iridium compound would be good.
  • In the text it mentions "volatile new oxide" but it appears that this is the osmium oxide. So might be best to explain that.
  • Occurrence in the crust graph does not match text. It looks as if iridium is the rarest, not the same as tellurium. (though graph is by number of atoms).
  • Density - there is a claim around that iridium density is higher than osmium under pressure. Probably this should be mentioned.
  • "Densities of Osmium and Iridium". Technology.matthey.com. is incompletely referenced - appears to be a journal article - easy to fix. changed to journal reference --Stone (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Kittel, C. (2004). Introduction to Solid State Physics (7th ed.). Wiley-India. ISBN 978-81-265-1045-0. needs a page number rather than a whole book
  • Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7. also has an old edition listed. But this new edition has no page numbers
  • Chemistry : foundations and applications -- link appears to go to a page that does not support the fact. Perhaps it is vol1 instead of vol2.
  • Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E.; Wiberg, N. (2001). Inorganic Chemistry (1st ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-352651-9. OCLC 47901436. → missing page number
  • Relación histórica del viage a la América Meridional → volume 1 does not appear to have 606 pages (only 404). Copies are online so it would be good to link to a page image for this ref. http://alfama.sim.ucm.es/dioscorides/consulta_libro.asp?ref=b19196386&idioma=0
  • A system of chemistry of inorganic bodies page 693 does not mention "ptene" - perhaps page is wrong. Or perhaps volume is wrong, the link is for volume 2 but reference does not state the volume. https://archive.org/details/asystemchemistr07thomgoog/page/692/mode/2up Yes this mentioned in the first volume, changed the link and added volume = 1 .--Stone (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The discovery of the elements by Mary Elvira Weeks 1968 → archive.org has taken this down
  • We should change to the articles published in Chemical education which make up the book. --Stone (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Trigg, G. L. (1995). Landmark Experiments in Twentieth Century Physics. → this is on Google books preview, and the chapter is "Recoilless Emission and Absorption of Radiation" [27]
  • "Cuproiridsite" reference has a PDF date 17 October 2005. And author=Mineral Data Publishing
  • Vitaly A. Stepanov; Valentina E. Kungurova; Vitaly I. Gvozdev (2010). "IRARSITE DISCOVERY IN COPPER-NICKEL ORES OF SHANUCH DEPOSIT (KAMCHATKA)" should probably be in title case.
  • Iridium and Osmium as Tracers of Extraterrestrial Matter in Marine Sediments might need to make this clearer that its in a book edited by Peucker-Ehrenbrink, B., Schmitz, B. published by Springer
  • Platinum-Group Metals. U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries now redirects to "Platinum-Group Metals Statistics and Information" at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/platinum-group-metals-statistics-and-information by Ruth F. Schulte
  • Singerling, Sheryl A.; Schulte, Ruth F. (August 2021). "Platinum-Group Metals". 2018 Minerals Yearbook (PDF). USGS. p. 57.11. link is now dead. (All access to this object has been disabled)
  • . "Platinum Metals: A Survey of Productive Resources to industrial Uses" link no longer works
  • Jollie, D. (2008). "Platinum 2008" (PDF). Platinum. Johnson Matthey. ISSN 0268-7305. Retrieved 2008-10-13. → the link appears to be for something different. corrected and added doi issue volume and correct link --Stone (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Emsley, J. (2005-01-18). "Iridium" (PDF). Visual Elements Periodic Table. Royal Society of Chemistry → now redirects to a periodic table, so perhaps something else needs to be referenced like https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/77/iridium
  • link for Handley, J. R. (1986). "Increasing Applications for Iridium" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review. 30 (1): 12–13. → no longer works--Stone (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Stallforth, H.; Revell, P. A. (2000). Euromat 99. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-30124-9. → link does not work for Google books, and there is no page number for referencing spark plug use.
  • US 3293031A, Cresswell, Peter & Rhys, David, published 20/12/1966 should make this clear it's a patent.
  • Darling, A. S. (1960). "Iridium Platinum Alloys" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review. 4 (l): 18–26 → link does not work, but bibcode is OK. Should add doi 10.1038/186211a0 → it appears this is really published in Nature. Nature volume 186, page 211 (1960) The Nature is only a review of the published article--Stone (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Penzes, W. B. (2001). "Time Line for the Definition of the Meter". National Institute for Standards and Technology → link is dead--Stone (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Fluidigm Cell-ID™ Intercalator-Ir". → should have a bit more reference info - it is a company page about product.
  • Mottishaw, J. (1999). "Notes from the Nib Works—Where's the Iridium?". The PENnant. XIII (2). → link goes to a blog index page, but the story is not there, so need to locate a better link
  • "The Paris Exhibition". The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science. XV: 182. → should be able to have a link, perhaps: https://archive.org/details/chemicalnewsand08croogoog/page/n195/mode/2up

Why not use https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_chemical_news._Volume_15,_January_-_June_1867._(IA_s713id13683370).pdf&page=188 ? --Stone (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not many options of photos for this element's compounds. If a user could upload a new photo, that would be great, but in the meantime I chose File:Sodium hexachloroiridate(III) hydrate.jpg with alt text Inorganic pale brown powder and a crossref to a foreign-language article on the compound shown. Other options were File:Ir2Cl2(cod)2.jpg, File:Vaska's-complex-sample.jpg, and two blurry crystal samples of lithium iridate. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 03:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The history section quotes a book by Antonio de Ulloa in 1748 as the first mentioning of platinum alloys. This is wrong and not stated in this way in the platinum article. This section should be copied from the more recent FA articles. --Stone (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hilary PutnamEdit

Notified: User talk:Lacatosias, User talk:BardRapt, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Cognitive science, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, WikiProject University of California Dec 2021, talk page notice 28 June 2022

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised over 6months ago and are still unadressed. Z1720 left an extensive list on the talk page, including issues with uncited text, lack of hqrs, and lack of specificity in some areas (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter is working at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The citation style wandered all over the place, including a mix of template and various different manual choices. I've slowly been trying to standardize them. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, I think the citation style is uniform now. Some entries probably have DOI's and/or JSTOR identifiers that still need to be looked up and added, but at least now that can be done by plugging into a template. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
At this point, I think I've done the most tedious part of the maintenance. Of the issues raised on the talk page, the citation style is now consistent, encyclopedia.com has been replaced, and ownership of the blog has been confirmed. I disagree with the idea that the article should be organized wholly chronologically, as that would weave in and out of different philosophical subjects. Having a chronological part and a conceptual/thematic part makes more sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been unable so far to get a copy of the L. P. Hickey book that is cited several times. I doubt that anything cited to it is wrong, or at least grossly wrong, since those statements match what is said in other sources (e.g., the NYT obituary) when they do overlap. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There are not big source-to-text integrity concerns here; it's not an article that has been hit by everyone with a keyboard, and there's no reason to believe the FA version had sourcing issues. (It was a miserable FAC, but not for sourcing reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
To be on the safe side, I supplemented that reference with the obituary in the Guardian.
The article had nothing about Putnam's work in the philosophy of quantum physics, which would be enough to disqualify it from being FA on comprehensiveness grounds. I added a brief section on the topic. It is difficult to say more on it, since the subject matter is doubly esoteric (physics and philosophy), and Putnam was rather infamous for never taking the same viewpoint twice. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there another list of his doctoral students somewhere, besides this? XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I don't know if it's "Wikipedia's best work" or not, but I think it's in better shape than it was, with the problems that had been identified either fixed or only debatably problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks XOR ! Buidhe can you wrangle in other reviewers to look at this? The original FAC gives me such bad memories that the idea of combing through this article gives me hives. I'd rather not be the one to have to comb through it in gory detail; happy to peek in after others have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow. I finally looked at that, and ... yikes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I've decided that I have no idea how to cover Putnam's doctoral students (a topic raised on the Talk page). There is no definitive list that I can find, and thus no good starting point for writing a summary. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Then perhaps we can agree to not add them at all, unless an individual student is so prominent, and mentioned by enough secondary sources, that it would be WP:UNDUE not to mention that individual. This issue is an artifact of infoboxes we don't need. Because someone stuck a stupid parameter in an infobox template, we're left with information that does nothing to increase our understanding of the subject; we aren't obliged to use an infobox, or that parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Sounds fair. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe we're at a month, and this is your nom. Are you able to revisit, and wrangle in others who might opine? Guidance or declarations or feedback are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like XOR'easter has improved the article alot. I'm not immediately seeing anything that would lead me to oppose it. However, I know next to nothing about the subject matter and have limited time to learn it. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 are you able to add anything here relative to your original list on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Since I made that list several months ago, I decided to review this article. Here are some thoughts below:
  • The lede is quite long. While the article can justify 3-4 paragraphs per MOS:LEDELENGTH, the current lede is really pushing those boundaries. Any ideas on what can potentially be removed or rephrased?
  • "a publication of the American Communist Party, from 1936 to 1946 (when he became disillusioned with communism)." I'm assuming that the parenthesis is about his father's disillusionment with communism although I was unclear when I first read it. If his father's communist disillusionment is not relevant to Putnam's life, then I think the parenthesis can be removed.
  • I added a citation needed tag at the end of a paragraph and some quotes.
  • In "Metaphilosophy and ontology" why are "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" bolded?
  • I think "Metaphilosophy and ontology" can be organised more effectively into fewer paragraphs.
  • "Criticism" sections have fallen out of use on Wikipedia due to POV concerns. Perhaps this section can be reworked into an analysis section of his theories?
  • Why is "Sardonic comment" a high quality source?
  • Ref 1, "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" and ref 38, ""Hilary Putnam Wins the Rescher Prize for 2015!". need an access dates.
Unfortunately, the information about his theories is too technical for my understanding, so it's hard for me to evaluate that. However, I think the above gives some additional things that can be improved. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" are bolded because internal realism and pragmatic realism redirect to that section (MOS:BOLDREDIRECT). Sardonic comment is Hilary Putnam's blog, I haven't looked at what it's being used to cite though so I'm not sure if it's being used appropriately or not. I've fixed some of the smaller things listed above but the main ones still need working on. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
yes, sardoniccomment is his blog, and I added proof of that some months back (to one of the citations if I recall correctly) .. it is being used appropriately (last I checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I've redistributed the wealth of the "Criticism" section to the other sections, and I moved some of the details from the lede to the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I haven't tried a major reorganization of "Metaphilosophy and ontology", but I did join some short paragraphs. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments about sourcing on talk from Alduin2000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC to keep the process on track. FARC does not preclude further work and that the article's star still might be saved.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I've started trying to fix some of the sourcing issues I raised by adding additional secondary sources. I noticed that there is some repetition on the various realisms Putnam subscribed to throughout his life (e.g. direct realism, internal realism etc.), especially between the Epistemology, Metaphilosophy and ontology, and Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein sections. I've been trying to figure out how to merge all of this together in a way that makes sense, and what section would be best to merge it all to. Does anyone else have any ideas about this? Alduin2000 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I wish I had a good idea here. Perhaps the material in "Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein" can be redistributed to other sections. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, style and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems like edits are being conducted to the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Baháʼí FaithEdit

Notified: Cuñado, Gazelle55, dragfyre, Bahá'í Faith WikiProject, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-15
Additional notifications: Dominic, Smkolins, WP Iran, WP Religion, WP Islam, WP History, WP Theology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Additional at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Baháʼí Faith/archive1#Notifications SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he just stumbled upon it. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. Nutez (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad this FAR is happening, I'll get started with some thoughts. I haven't participated in a FAR before so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this, but having edited on Baha'i topics on Wikipedia a lot, I do think there are some problems with this article that need to be addressed. I just went point-by-point through the featured article criteria:
1a. Well-written – no issues to my knowledge.
1b. Comprehensive – one problem:
> I think the article needs to reflect more criticisms. This could be a "Criticism" section (see Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism) or else just integrating some material from Criticism of the Baha'i Faith where appropriate in the article.
1c. Well-researched – a few problems:
> Some sections of the "Social practices" section have no sources or few sources.
This source seems to cover most of the law mentioned - Schaefer, Udo (2002). "An Introduction to Bahā'ī Law: Doctrinal Foundations, Principles and Structures". Journal of Law and Religion. 18 (2): 307–72. doi:10.2307/1602268. JSTOR 1602268. but need to find a few more maybe though
* Smith, Peter (2000). "law". A concise encyclopedia of the Baháʼí Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
*Smith, Peter (2008-04-07). An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-521-86251-6.
might pick up the slack? Smkolins (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
> Quite a few sources (including for some important claims) are from sources that do not meet WP:RS. I could elaborate further on why individual sources aren't RS, but I'm speaking of those by Taherzadeh, Balyuzi, Esslemont, Walbridge, Hatcher, etc. These are written by Baha'i authors and published by Baha'i publishing houses and I believe this compromises NPOV in the article (not to mention using the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the world's Baha'is, itself as a source).
> The part about the history, particularly the early history, doesn't reflect scholarly disagreements on the topic. Non-Baha'i scholars including Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, and Juan Cole have written in depth about the early history of the Baha'i Faith (and its precursor religion, Babism). In particular, I have a copy of the ebook of MacEoin's extensive work The Messiah of Shiraz published by Brill and its findings are often at odds with those in this article (e.g., did the Bab actually make a prophecy that he would be followed by another messenger in 19 years as the article currently says?). I don't insist on that exact source being cited, but it should be clear to readers that there isn't consensus that the religion's early history happened the way Baha'is now believe it did.
> One citation is simply to "From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932" and needs to be improved.
1d. Neutral – one problem:
> The "Shoghi Effendi's summary" section is based on a primary non-independent source. Unless this quote is highlighted in secondary sources, I don't think it should be in the article since it is potentially not NPOV, again the Baha'i Faith's view of itself rather than the appraisal of secondary sources.
1e. Stable – no issues to my knowledge.
1f. Copyright compliant – no issues to my knowledge.
2a. Lead – no issues to my knowledge.
2b. Appropriate structure – no issues to my knowledge.
2c. Consistent citations – no issues to my knowledge.
3. Media – no issues to my knowledge.
4. Length – no issues to my knowledge.
So overall, it is a strong article in most respects but there are some important issues to be addressed. Happy to help with improvements to the extent I have time. Also interested to hear thoughts from other editors. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Just adding (mostly MOS issues) to this list, quick glance only:

  • MOS:SANDWICHing
    Since we're being detailed, I don't know what that is supposed to link to because the redirect no longer actually exists? Smkolins (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    I just checked, and yes it does ... ???? ... anyway, don't sandwich text in between images and tables and the like. If you still don't see it, try going to MOS:IMAGES and scrolling down to MOS:SANDWICH, which is linked in the Location section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    I had no idea "Sandwich" had anything to do with "images".Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    I still don't see an instance of text between two pictures. In my view there are pictures staggered left and right as you scroll down but none are directly across from eachother. Perhaps it depends on the viewer's browser/screen size? Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Look at this section; there's a big long timeline template that is sandwiched with the image. The timeline could be converted to a horizontal template, as one example of how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    O - I didn't even think of that as an image. To me it's like an extension of the template. Visually it fits? Thanks for the hatnote example. Smkolins (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    It's good to stop occasionally and view the page on different browsers, for example, your mobile device (iPhone, Droid, etc, as that is what most readers use, according to the WMF). PS, it was not my intent to distract you to the little stuff, when there is so much big stuff that needs to be addressed, rather to call to the attention of anyone working towards a save that there are MOS breaches throughout, so you can correct as you go. It is more urgent to address POV, sourcing, and the prose issues (listiness and overquoting). The lists I put up were just to raise your awareness so you all don't introduce more problems as you go, which will later need to be fixed. For example, the faulty ellipses (see below), just added, along with faulty page ranges throughout, still being added. I also suggest you all become very friendly with scholar.google, as the sourcing seems to include a lot of lesser quality sources (news, encyclopedias). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Overquoting
  • MOS:ACCIM (hatnotes go before images) I corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Listiness in prose – several lists need to be converted to prose, and sourced/attributed.
  • MOS:OVERLINKing (see for example Universal House of Justice); you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
  • HarvRef errors abound, indicating sourcing needs cleanup; you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js

Overall, fails 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Faulty hatnotes (eg, the "Main" template should be used when WP:SS is employed).
  • Dated text, sample only, "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004 included ... " check throughout needed.
    Another sample of dated text/sources, as found throughout: "Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iranian Baháʼís have regularly had their homes ransacked or have been banned from attending university or from holding government jobs, and several hundred have received prison sentences ..." cited to 2003. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  • It's everywhere: another sample, "However, the government has never produced convincing evidence supporting its characterization of the Baháʼí community.[174] " Cited to 2008. A top-to-bottom rewrite is going to be needed here, as it appears the article has not been updated since the last review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at a cumulative diff of the edits made since the FAR opened, if the intent is to save this star, MOS-compliant editing will be needed. This diff shows the introduction of:

  • Several instances of faulty ellipses, see MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Faulty page ranges throughout, see MOS:PAGERANGE
  • Mixed citation styles (see WP:WIAFA); if sources are being cited with short note sfns, that should be consistent throughout (books listed in the sources, with page ranges specified in the sfn).

Bringing these things up now to avoid having to fix a lot of stuff later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  • You can install user:GregU/dashes.js to keep WP:ENDASHes vs. hyphens in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks - I got the working though for some reason i have two showing up on my view. I tried the other tools suggested above but so far I'm not seeing them show up anywhere in my view.Smkolins (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
    With the HarvRef script, you don't have to do anything to make it work ... just scroll to the bottom of the article to see the red print showing up with sources that have errors. For the Dup links script, you sometimes have to click it twice, from the toolbox on the left of your screen, and then scroll down through the article to fine indication of dupe links in red. It's tricky. Also, you don't have to eliminate all duplicate links; at times, they can be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Overall, saving this star will require an almost top-to-bottom rewrite and revamping of prose, sourcing and correction of MOS issues involving editors experienced with content at the FA level; a 2004 FA last reviewed in 2007 (which wasn't a review at all) that has not been maintained, the article is not even close to modern FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for the comments and for raising all these points from the MOS that I mostly wasn't aware of. I agree that the page will need a lot of work... in fact as I look at the sources more closely I can see even more of them will need replacing. I won't have time in the next couple weeks to do this scale of revisions. Seems reasonable to me that the page may FA status and can maybe regain it eventually with enough work, but if other editors want to jump in and fix everything in time then great, I can help here and there. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to dump the trivial on you, when there are larger issues, but it seems better to get everything out at once, in fairness. Others need to decide if this article is really saveable at FAR, or if it should be defeatured, with a later return to FAC when ready. The work needed here would be daunting for experienced FA writers ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The page has not had a systematic rewrite in many years if ever - mostly people are just trying to tweak update and handle shifting set of sources and things coming published, and shifting content as it expands into separate articles, sometimes several, and sometimes those article being condensed or themselves split into other articles. Wikipedia has certain evolved over time and perhaps several of us who've been keeping up the article and related article developments are in need of a tune up of what that evolving standard is. I look forward, with others, to trying. I happily just hit a window of relative availability to partake I very much hope with others can join in. Some technical points are not my forte, partly because I'm on a Mac and various assumptions it seems wikipedia has decided on are not directly simply supported, some perhaps my own habits - i have _systematically_ used '…' vs "..." not least because Macs automatically change the later into the former. Probably also because I've been in computers as far back as 1990. There are other examples. I also use the source editing environment rather than the other because when I had to learn some techniques I was more successful at that than the mediated type which also sometimes didn't work on Macs using Safari. And what to you all may feel like standard is to me a platform choice and arbitrarily against my habits. And there are so many date patterns across the world - and though I'm limited to English I still read through diverse websites - I similarly find arguments about date formatting tedious. There are almost as many detailed rendering of dates as there are published scholarly sources - far more than 'Chicago' other 'styles' let alone Wikipedia's citation styles and that evolution. Not that I'm trying to get into a platform discussion - just a flavor of where I'm coming from. But don't mistake what may seem like noisey editing to you as clumsiness of me. On the other hand I may have relatively better access to resources through published scholarship and I believe I've show some resourcefulness at tracking things down. And I have had pokes at trying to get actual papers published in diverse professional environments while I still have a day job. I hope that day is much closer than it used to be. Be that as it may, I don't proceed from assumption that I know what I'm doing - I've been open to learning and am open to learning what makes articles better. Smkolins (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    I did something to my iPad that forced it to let me override the Apple ellipsis style, but I'll be darned if I can remember where that setting is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting you manage on an iPad. Congratulations on that. Smkolins (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you all think you have enough committed editors working to save this star, it may be more manageable to switch to using the article talk page for communication, and just keep this (FAR) page updated at least once a week on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions Smkolins... I know I sometimes remove sources that I don't think are RS but in general I do appreciate you digging lots of sources up. Anyway, we can discuss further changes at the talk page. I doubt we have enough editors working hard enough to save the star but perhaps we can get there eventually. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll take a stab today at the demographics section in a sandbox and see how it develops. Smkolins (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Doing a weekly check, I see that not only is this vague, weasly, unattributed list still present, but the tag I put on that section is gone. A section like that needs to be written out in prose, with attribution. Not promising, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It is attributed now, and a majority of sources use the bullet-list form. I don't see a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
It would have been expeditious to inquire before (someone) removed the tag. Here's what the text says now:
  • When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he lectured on certain progressive principles that are often listed for a quick summary of the Baháʼí teachings. There is no authoritative list and a variety circulate with various nuances. The following is an example.
    What principles did he include when he lectured ? From the following list, we don't know.
    What is the meaning of "often listed for a quick summary"? Sounds ORish and should be attributed ... And this is an FA; we don't want a "quick summary" list; it should have finely written and attributed prose. Scholars such as a, b, c and d list x, y and z as important principles.
    What are the "various nuances" and according to whom? Cite and attribute.
    The following is an example .. why was that one chosen?
This is not scholarly analysis or FA-level writing. Then the first real prose after the list:
  • With specific regard to the pursuit of world peace, Baháʼu'lláh prescribed a world-embracing collective security arrangement for the establishment of a temporary era of peace referred to in the Baháʼí teachings as the Lesser Peace ...
"Specific regard"? The entire first clause is redundant; FA-level prose isn't happening.
Then in the next paragraph, we do get one person's description of the "distinguishing principles" in the form of over-quoting. It is wonderful to see the article undergoing improvements, but they aren't yet happening at the level to retain FA status. We need to write the defining principles of this religion in our own words-- not a vaguely attributed list, and not over-quoting.
FAR is famously patient and allows time to address issues, but removing maintenance tags without understanding the underlying issue isn't making good use of reviewers' time. Think about inquiring first ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
OK that's helpful. I'll work on it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Demographics section; I mentioned above I'd take a stab at it. See User:Smkolins/Sandbox9 I'd appreciate checking it out SandyGeorgia and Cuñado, and others when you have time. Smkolins (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    I'm glad you're working on it, but that's not there. The prose is dense, there is still considerable listiness, and there are grammatical errors. Facts are facts that shouldn't need attribution (unless controversial). Demographics section take a fairly standard format throughout Wikipedia. The demographics section of another article at FAR, Darjeeling, was just rewritten; maybe you can look at it for a sample. You might also look at Japan. You might also look at atheism (although it needs to come to FAR). I'm running quite behind at FAR due to COVID; perhaps Fowler&fowler can better explain the prose issues in your sandbox version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    Will take a look tomorrow. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Fowler&fowler. I've tried to follow the Darjeeling example, with some help from Cuñado, which broadly I'd say is: newest info right at the top, in the simplest most direct language the sources support, and details follow, (and since this itself a section that has its own article keep those details to a minimum with the remainder left for that page.) Smkolins (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to re-structure the page, as I mentioned on the talk page, but realistically I haven't found the time the last few weeks, and I don't see it happening in the next week. If you feel like removing the featured status, that makes sense for now. If you want to wait a few more weeks, it's my next priority. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC to keep the process on track; FARC does not preclude further improvements and that the article's star still might be saved, but we are more than a month in, and the article is still in very rough shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    Fowler&fowler you are entering comments in the FAR section, when the article has moved to FARC. Could you move your comments to there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    OK, will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Many apologies to SandyG and Smkolins for forgetting to come back to this.
  • Smkolins, I think the main issue is that the text is not accessible. The article needs to be rewritten with two things in mind: (a) Will this be entirely clear to an ordinary reader anywhere in the world; will that ordinary reader be best served by this order of presentation? (b) Have I said this before, if so how does it fit with what I have said; if not, how will it fit with what I will say later? For example, I would rewrite the first paragraph in the lead in the following manner. I'm not saying that I have summarized the teachings correctly, but I have attempted to make it more accessible:

    The Baháʼí Faith is a religion founded in the mid-19th century in Iran. It teaches that all religions have grown from a single blueprint and have been fashioned by the same God; the image of that God is the composite of all humanity. The faith was founded by Baháʼu'lláh, the byname of Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí who was born in Iran in 1817. It grew at first in Iran and some other parts of Western Asia but also faced persecution there, leading to Baháʼu'lláh's flight to what is now Israel, where he died in 1892.[1] As of 202?, the adherents of the Baha'i faith—commonly called Baháʼís—are scattered throughout the world and number between five million and eight million.

    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    I would swap the second paragraph for the third.
    There is too much about the founders too early in the lead, but not enough to reel in the reader. By this I mean: there is too much sketchy or offhand mention, but without any hook to catch the attention of a reader who is unfamiliar with the material. When you present such material you have to do it in a way that doesn't overload the reader with details that might appear disconnected to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's what I am able to say at this stage. The issues are more those of consistency and comprehensibility than syntax. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the input Fowler&fowler and hope to see how this will take shape in the article. Historically (though I only go back to around 2005) I would say that contested attempts to edit have tended towards finding more and more citations and finding language that satisfies consensus and participants in the process who are not the "ordinary reader". We keep getting into debates on points that are only settled by fine details. Additionally there has been a here-and-there editing quality to the article though also some consistency, especially by Cuñado I feel, to harmonize the article though it's been an uphill battle to get consensus on changes in language. For example you make the lead a lot easier to read, I agree, but we *often* had editors tweak the language in lots of different ways which Cuñado merged into what I feel has been a stabilizing note that has acted as a 'defense' against the continued history of attempts to tweak the first sentences. I understand and like your sentences but how does one defend against such editing of saying x with cite means it should be included when this approach you outline suggests we have to find an applicable standard that preservers readability instead of bowing to every citation?? Smkolins (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sources

References

  1. ^ Affolter 2005.

Green children of WoolpitEdit

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

Review sectionEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP post on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I entered a Move to FARC last March; my opinion has not changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    As a latecomer to the discussion, it's hardly up to me, but in any case, I don't know how one moves it to FARC. Perhaps someone would like to bite the bullet and do so, and we can take it from there? John O'London (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    See the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR Coords decide what consensus there is based on declarations from the participants. Declarations at this stage can be things like "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of a "Keep" FA), "Move to FARC", "Work continuing", etc ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Since the people who edit this "encyclopedia" presumably have access to the back issues of folklore journals and other online resources which are free if you can log on as a member of the relevant university, but cost everybody else so much it isn't worth it, perhaps a little research in that area would be useful? I mean proper research, not the wikipedia version of research that autistically lumps together everything that references the subject of the article in any context and gives it all equal weight, whether it's an academic treatise or a passing mention on The Simpsons.

In this instance, we have an extremely improbable tale derived from only two sources, both secondary at best and written long after the alleged events. The earlier of the two makes the only mention anywhere of a named primary witness, Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, whoever he was. Thus if Sir Richard was for any reason not telling the truth, it's just a tall story that he told, Ralph of Coggeshall believed, and William of Newburgh also believed when he heard about it in some other way a few decades later. And unless we assume these bizarre events to be literally true in every detail, Sir Richard, who claimed to have known the Green Children quite well, either told his own story very inaccurately or was very badly misquoted.

So if we treat the tale as history, we have a straight choice between believing that a lost tribe of green people live in mysterious subterranean villages beneath England from which they sometimes emerge through caves no-one can ever find afterwards, or that the story is possibly to some degree true, but every extant version of it leaves out important facts and inserts impossible ones, so basically the number of reliable sources is zero.

On the other hand, from a folkloric perspective, almost every detail fits an extremely generic narrative about fairies which somehow made the transition from pure fiction to a rumour which people came to believe was true. I said "almost" every detail. The two points which don't fit are that fairies aren't mentioned at all, the place from which the children came being called "Saint Martin's Land", a mysterious realm which as far as I know is unique to this story, and that there's a reference to this strange land having Christian churches. Which makes perfect sense if you assume that whoever invented the tale - possibly Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, to wind up a gullible monk - simply retold a traditional fairy story as fact, but left out all mention of fairies and inserted a couple of Christian references because otherwise it would have been a direct accusation that the villagers of Woolpit consorted with pagan creatures that according to official Christian doctrine were literally devils.

Modern attempts to make the narrative fit whatever agenda the writer is obsessed with are all desperately contrived. At best we have to assume that the inhabitants of Woolpit somehow didn't know of the existence of another village within walking distance entirely populated by immigrants who didn't speak English, and they never, ever found out about it. At worst, we have to swallow the barking mad word-salad of professional eccentrics like Duncan Lunan and accept that it's perfectly plausible for Star Trek transporter beams to accidentally whisk people across the galaxy from strange medieval planets inhabited by little green men who live on beans.

If the article was rewritten so that the bulk of it treated the story as the folklore it obviously is, and compared it with other traditional tales of fairies, fairyland, intermarriage between humans and fairies, and so on, it might be more objective, and perhaps even encyclopedic. You could still have a little bit at the end listing the nonsense. And nonsense it is. Your own page on Duncan Lunan, which reads as though it was written by a very close friend of his, contains statements like "On his mother's side, he traces his ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve", and cheerfully recounts his claim (since retracted) to have decoded radio messages from an alien probe in orbit around the Moon. I would be disinclined to take seriously any theory about anything proposed by this fellow, particularly if it was published in a magazine mainly devoted to science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.224 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include citations and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist, nothing but confusion since the FAR was initiated, and no one addressing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    Striking for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist, very convoluted and byzantine FAR, yet issues remain. Nutez (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist - FAR has gone on for months with basically no clarity; it's unclear where the article status is, but it doesn't seem to be FA right now given the comments in the FAR section. Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Delist no edits to the article since June, and no one has said during the FARC that they are working on this. Progress seems to have stalled, and unless someone is going to step up and adopt this article, I think it should be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The FAR started with only two issues to consider - 'close paraphrasing' and 'citation'. These were dealt with. The matter of comprehensiveness was only raised during the FAR - this prompted a contributor to add an unexpected extra 50% of text, bringing with it its own citation and other problems, like poor formatting, referencing errors and lack of proper integration. The citation issues in the new text were then dealt with alongside the original, and I believe that the article is now up to standard in that respect, errors have been corrected and some tweaking has helped to integrate the new with the old - even if one could argue that the text is now too comprehensive, with irrelevancies and unnecessary citations that add nothing! More seriously, does the 'extra' material itself meet FA standards? Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? The FAR, disrupted by the late additions, never considered these issues since no-one had ever questioned them! So unless someone is willing to comment at this late stage on whether as a whole the article meets all the FA criteria, including those the FAR wasn't asked to consider, so that some kind soul can 'adopt' the article and try to meet the criticisms, I am going to be contrary and vote that the article should retain its FA status - at least until someone wishes to raise a new FAR with a proper list of the problems that need to be addressed! It makes nonsense of the FAR system if the goalposts are moved during the process. With a lot of hard work by a number of people, in my opinion the article now successfully meets the criticisms that the original referral was based on - citations and close paraphrasing - as well as the comprehensiveness issue that was raised later. So, please, Keep. John O'London (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    First, whether something is or isn't raised initially in the FAR is irrelevant. Any FAR should look at everything. Second, I am completely confused about your statements about the status of the article. I suggest you might want to send it back through FAC once you feel it's ready. Most here, like me, may be at this point unable to state the article is at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    In your Delist comment above you said "no one is addressing concerns". Could someone please list the concerns that have not been addressed? John O'London (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    I can't list concerns for anyone else; my concern was that your posts implied there were still big problems in the article ... but was written in a way that I couldn't even decipher what those were. As one example, when you ask if anyone has access to certain sources, if no one does, we can't state that this article is at standard. With none of the original writers active on this FAR, we've not much to go on, and your stance has been unclear. It's still murky enough that I suggest delisting and going back through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
    When I stated my general concerns back on FAR you were the only one who responded, so it seemed that nobody agreed with my assessment - I didn't think it was worth taking further - but (scrolling back) you were already recommending moving it to FARC. Did you already have your own specific reservations, even after the hard work you'd put in to improving it? OK, I've spent a bit of time this morning on the article - mostly removing what I personally considered to be the superfluous and irrelevant, and some unreliable sources, and tidying up some bad writing. Beyond that I can't go. Now - quote "Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable?" I've no idea what Wikipedia's standards are - which is why I want someone else to look at it as a whole. All I'd ask those who recommend Delist that they do so on the basis of the article as it is, not on the fact that the FAR was chaotic. If it is delisted I may continue tweaking it for accuracy but I don't intend to be involved in any future attempt to put it forward as a Featured Article candidate. John O'London (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@John O'London: A concern raised in this FAR was verifying the information. Where are we with that? Has everything currently in the article been checked? If not, and you are willing to do this, can you verify the information, or post here what you can't access? This will allow other editors to see if they have access to the source. Also, if you don't have access to a source, but find another one that verifies the info, we can replace the reference. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: You've got me worried! I did a random check this morning, noticed a date in the lead that puzzled me: "The story was praised as an ideal fantasy by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read in his English Prose Style, published in 1931, and provided the inspiration for his only novel, The Green Child, written in 1934." Not sure when it was written but Read's novel was published in 1935, and surely publication date is what one expects here. The 1934 date is repeated under Publication and Legacy, with a citation of a 2010 article in the Guardian - which actually gives the correct publication date: 1935. The incorrect date 1934 has been in the article for a very long time - I think it was there in the original article when it received its FA status. In those days (2011), it cited a Leeds University Library catalogue record - I've checked the Leeds online catalogue, which says '1935?', but adds the information 'first published in 1935'. British Library says '1935', other catalogues say '[1935]'. (I think the problem is the date doesn't appear under the publisher's name on the title page but on the following page and says 'first published in 1935' without confirming that this is the first edition!) Other sources (including Clark 2006a, cited many times in the article for such basic information) agree on 1935. Even the reference to Read's earlier publication English Prose Style is problematic - there was an edition published in 1931 (and several later), but the first edition was in 1928 (Clark 2006a, 220)! The date 1931 does not appear in the reference cited (Harder 1973, 716) so I don't know where it came from.
I had previously assumed that material in the original FA - created by two of Wikipedia's most renowned and experienced contributors AND 'passed' as FA - was factually accurate (even if I disagreed with the emphasis given to certain sources) and never read it looking for that sort of error. During the FAR I concentrated on helping find the missing page numbers (a task which is complete as far as I know) and checking the bulky additions made in the midst of the FAR by Serial Number 54129 - and that kept me busy! John O'London (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@John O'London: Based on what you and Q28 found, I would suggest to "keep" this article as an FA unless every source and reference is spot-checked. Is this something you would be willing to do? If you don't have access to a source, post it below and others will see if they have access to it. I also suggest that you look up additional sources that might be used in the article (WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar might find something). Once the spot-check is complete and additional sources are checked for, please ping me and I'll do a more thorough review of the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: I think I'll have to call it a day now as far as sources and references are concerned - see History for my recent changes. Although I have easy access to most of the sources (mostly on my own bookshelves) I see no point in checking every reference - most of the page numbers were checked during the FAR. I have spot-checked 'on suspicion' - where I thought there was something wrong with a reference or didn't think the quote/summary fairly represented what the source said. This threw up for example that 'Hill 2004' looks like a second-hand quotation via 'Bramwell 2009' who quotes Hill - I doubt if the contributor who added it checked the original source - I've replaced it with a more reliable source for the same theory (ie the man who invented the 'atavistic harvest ritual' theory!). For consistency I've (reluctantly) changed the occasional reference to them as 'the Green Children' to 'the green children', as it appeared in the title and lead, and in the majority of instances - 'green children' is how it appeared in the original FA, and it was never queried, so I assume there is some esoteric Wikipedia reason for using lower case! I've also wikilinked some more author-names in the list of sources - can't see any more to link. It is now in my opinion pretty comprehensive and up-to-date (to 2020). I'd be very pleased if you would do a thorough review of the article's prose. John O'London (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@John O'London: the spot check is not just about page numbers, as the original comments outlined various areas with close paraphrasing. The sources need to be checked in comparison to the article and the paraphrasing eliminated. Has this happened already? Also, Otter, M. (1996) and Poole, W. (2009) are listed as sources but not used in the article. Do you have access to these sources, and should they be included in the article? I did a quick JSTOR and WP:LIBRARY search for more sources, but did not find any that I would consider high-quality or significant, but I will do another check later. If anyone has other sources (databases or books) that can be added, please mention below or add them directly to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720: sorry, my fault - Otter: I deleted a footnote that I considered irrelevant (it was about another of William of Newburgh's stories, not the Green Children) and I hadn't noticed it was the only place her book was cited as a source. Otter (like Partner) is discussing the methods of William of Newburgh, rather than the Green Children story. Poole 2009, his edition of the Francis Godwin's the Man in the Moone, doesn't really add much to what was in his 2005 article on Godwin's sources. The 2009, pp 20-21 ref (which appeared under 'Folklore') was to Poole's argument that Godwin's Man in the Moone was inspired by Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, sufficiently covered in the previous para in the same section with its ref to Poole 2005, pp 200-202, and expanded on under 'Publication and Legacy'. Again I didn't realise this was the only reference to Poole 2009. Close paraphrasing - when it was raised in the FAR the original author rewrote some passages, tho' they pointed out that 'close paraphrasing' was a very subjective assessment. I'm afraid I am not sufficiently committed to Wikipedia or the FA status of this article to undertake a check of every single reference to see if it's a fair (but not too close!) reflection of the original. John O'London (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I am hesitant to do a copyedit of the article if close paragraphsing concerns have not been resolved yet, which will involve checking all the sources, in my opinion. Fortunately, earwig doesn't catch anything major (I suspect the strong similarities are sites that have copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.) Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my delist above: I don't think that a spot check has been done on the article yet, and no one has stepped up to conduct it. As this was a major concern in the FAR filing, I think that this needs to be completed before I can change my endorsement. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article appears to now meet WP:FACR criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, and 4. Concerns over 1b were addressed by expansion. On 1f, the initial concerns of close paraphrasing were in my opinion weak to start with and the article has since been expanded, copyedited, and run through earwig. On 1c, while there is some use of primary sources and the use of works by authors I personally would consider to be academically weak, this is a topic that attracts the weaker scholar and the 'relevant literature' includes these works. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I guess keep per DrKay, whose judgment I trust. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    Keep per DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yellowstone fires of 1988Edit

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

Review sectionEdit

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

  • Common decency should dictate that before an article goes to FAR, some time should be given to address any talkpage comments made; Hurricane Noah allowed near zero time for this to happen. With that said, and despite the overt rudeness of this behavior, I will address the issues in this article. I ask for clemency as to the timing as I will need 45-60 days to finish this.--MONGO (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR per MONGO until 28 February at least, and then re-evaluate for ongoing progress and the possibility of a further extension. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR per Sandy, to give MONGO a chance to tidy this one up. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This article is being worked on, albeit slowly. It will take me another 45 days to restore it as many of the ref URLs are dead so have to go through them individually.--MONGO (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      I see MONGO has started in here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
      MONGO could you provide an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      A little over halfway through updating refs.--MONGO (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
      Refs all updated. Need a bit yet to cleanup wording and add any further developments such as recovery, etc.--MONGO (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Sandy, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, it looks like MONGO has unfortunately gone inactive - where are things at here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I can take a look but it'll be a few days. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    This is on my radar ... as soon as I can. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The first thing I started looking at was the uncited note 3 in the infobox (which is actually cited by source 2). In trying to fix that I see that:

Article says: [28]
Losses to structures were minimized by concentrating firefighting efforts near major visitor areas, keeping property damage down to $3 million
Source says: [29]
Estimated property damage totaled more than $3 million.

That's the first thing I looked at, and is a contradiction. I simply do not have time, due to IRL issues, to go systematically through the whole thing to see if updates have been completed and to check for source-to-text integrity; without further intervention from MONGO, MOVE TO FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It depends on source...3 million is widely cited. I found a report from 1989, now added as the ref that says 3.280 million...--MONGO (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
All the refs have been checked, replaced, updated and or revised. Most of this was accomplished between February and end of April of this year....a snapshot of trhe changes can be seen here--MONGO (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @MONGO: Thanks for the update and improvements. There's an 'according to whom' tag in the final paragraph? DrKay (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Not sure why those last two sentences were even there as they are not accurate so I removed them altogether--MONGO (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Hog Farm and Hurricane Noah: what issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    • On my list - will try to look but I've got to do 600 miles of traveling around the Ozarks for work next week so I can't promise when I'll get to this. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    I will look later today for the academic literature. Everything else I mentioned appears to be fixed and I performed a copy edit to fix various grammatical issues. NoahTalk 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
    I think it is fine now. NoahTalk 00:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I reviewed on talk and noted significant source-text integrity issues; as this FAR has been ongoing for 7 months and still has these issues, I am at a delist barring new work. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Hog Farm I apreciate the time you spent at the talkpage listing the article's shortcomings. I request a further extension of time to be able to address these and others concerns of 30 days if possible.--MONGO (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I would imagine that @WP:FAR coordinators: would be fine with that. I found it difficult to verify the Franke and Politics of Disaster sources because they are the length of short books and it often wasn't clear where it was being pulled from in the source. Hog Farm Talk 13:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Update: MONGO is working through the source-text issues listed on talk. Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
          • Yes I am and have some more to do yet and hope to be done by Sunday evening. If other items arise let me know and I do all I can to address concerns.--MONGO (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hello, I'd like to assist with this article where possible. I can dig into some source text issues and other suggestions—are the source-text issues still a/the top priority? Penitentes (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'd like to help as well. I think source-to-text is definitely an issue; the first reference I checked ([5]) did not line up with the source. I'm going to systematically go through all the citations, and also try to use a few more book/journal sources for historical statements, instead of government ones (which I think are best for statistics). Ovinus (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)