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 5–7 days to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given).

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.

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 by any nominator is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks.
  2. No more than four nominations 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. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviewsEdit

EarthEdit

Notified: Femke Nijsse, Graham Beards, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Geology, WikiProject Science, WikiProject Solar System
The talk page discussions initiated in August 2020 should have been linked here, both for compliance with FAR instructions, and for a list of issues. See here.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is not well-written and not well-researched, as raised by Femke Nijsse and Graham Beards. RJHall nominated this article for FA status in April Fools' 2007 (13 years ago). --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Not well-written and not well-researched" is rather nonspecific. Can you offer some specific criticisms that might help in this review? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Femke Nijsse pointed out the following issues:
  • Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
    • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
    • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
    • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.
  • Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
    • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
    • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
    • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
    • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
    • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993
  • Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)
  • I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.
I had resolved some of them, but since I am underexperienced (a 16-year old dole), I have to leave it for someone else. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced this was a good example of talk page discussion with identification of issues, but scanning the page, one easily finds indications of deterioration since RJHall retired, including being crammed full of sandwiched images, some uncited text, and some repetition in the lead. A tune-up might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unfortunately relatively busy both on Wikipedia and finishing my thesis, but I will try to improve the under-sourced parts of the atmosphere and climate section over the next two weeks. There are a few sections that need either expert attention or quite a big time investment to update I think, for instance the future section, but possibly also the geological history and early life sections. Do we know any geologists that might be willing to help?
(@SandyGeorgia: what would be a better example of a talk page discussion?) Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Because a number had been resolved, and Graham Beards questioned others, it might have been better to ping involved editors to talk, or ask for help from WikiProjects, and to give it more time ... but here we are, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: thank you very much for your help with this (although I have no idea what a "dole" is) - hope you are enjoying your return to education. I could fix this article but I would rather spend the considerable time needed on some more specialist articles which there is no chance of others updating. All I can suggest is that if anyone does fix it they ask an intelligent 16 year old such as Soumya-8974 to read through it once they have finished to make sure it is understandable.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "dole" is – "Dole" is a clipping of adolescent. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
John M Wolfson
  • I'll note that this is a Level 1 Vital Article, so I'm going to be stricter in my interpretations of the FACR with this than I would an FAC of a "normal" article (or even anything that's not our Top 10 most important subjects).
  • Sourcing is of the utmost importance, especially here. From a brief inspection of the references list, I see a citation to The Alcalde (an alumni magazine) and Live Science. While I'm sure that Live Science is an adequate source, it is by no means the top-notch source in discussing something as scientifically commonplace as winds. Speaking of winds, that Live Science citation (Ref #157 as I type this) is part of a bulleted list whose other constituents are uncited without adequate excuse. There are also a few journal articles from the 1960s. Already these issues would severely compromise if not sink an FAC, IMO.
  • I agree with Nijsse that the lead, while understandable to me as a Geology graduate, is inappropriately dense, not to mention disjointed. I would put About 29% of Earth's surface is land consisting of continents and islands. The remaining 71% is covered with water, mostly by oceans but also lakes, rivers and other fresh water, which all together constitute the hydrosphere. The majority of Earth's polar regions are covered in ice, including the Antarctic ice sheet and the sea ice of the Arctic ice pack. Earth's interior remains active with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates Earth's magnetic field, and a convecting mantle that drives plate tectonics. right after the first sentence, as the first paragraph.
  • In the "Etymology" section, the Beowulf image and notes, while cool, are ultimately "cruft" that should be removed to streamline the article, IMO.
  • "Billion years ago" should be clarified to refer to the short-scale "billion" (109, not 1012); very ideally (though this is admittedly just my preference) "Ga" would be substituted for "BYA".
  • to form linking to Phase transition (in "Geological History") should either be dropped or have the link be reduced to simply form.
This is a non-exhaustive run-through. Overall this is salvageable but needs attention. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Cell nucleusEdit

Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest in the template. More than six months ago, Graham Beards stated on the talk:

the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.

Sadly, these issues have not been fixed in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As a start, I have marked the journal citations as either "Review" or "Primary" (based on the PubMed "publication type" classification) by adding a |department=Review/Primary parameter to all the {{cite journal}} templates. It appears that the only paragraphs that are without supporting citations are in the lead and a few short introductory sections whereas the subordinate subsections all contain cites. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have also deleted an obscure section on the "Fougaro System" that was only supported by primary sources. There may be a few more like this that could/should be removed. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)Edit

Notified: Seloloving, Pentagon 2057, Robertksy, TheGreatSG'rean, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Singapore

This article was nominated and promoted to GA status long ago in 2006. Since then, there has been many scattered and non specific edits as the network expanded over time. As of January 2020, a collective effort was made to clean up the article, especially the history section (which was appropriately summarised) and reformatted the rolling stock section to make the article less complex. However, there are still other outstanding issues, such as uncited fragments, and outdated information, and formatting issues at some sections.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Compared to the reviewed revision in 2006, it can be said without doubt that the article has expanded and improved a lot. Although there are certain sections (whole of section 4) in the current revision that may not meet the FA criteria (2b and maybe 1a), this does not compromise the core integrity of the article, and hence does not warrant a delist. I suggest creating a new spinoff page called 'Future of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)' for the chunky section 4 of the article to keep it inline with section 2b or moving it to History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) under a new section. In addition to that the article could do with a fresh copyedit to weed out the smaller problems with grammar or structure. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 08:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It is exam season now where I live and consequently my editing activity has declined sharply. However I have no doubt that there will be another editor willing to take on the work (or myself if still not done after my examinations conclude). Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 09:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Final Fantasy X-2Edit

Notified: Ryu Kaze, Deckiller, Square Enix WikiProject, Video games WikiProject

There was a call for an FAR back in January and I agree with that. There is information that is not cited in the article as well as this being a very old Featured Article has it not meeting the current criteria. It just needs an overhaul. GamerPro64 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @GamerPro64: I've reorganised and cited the gameplay section and done some rewriting and rearranging in other areas. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64:@SandyGeorgia: I am a huge fan of this game and have a pretty extensive amount of knowledge about it so I will try my best to help. Aside from the uncited portions, what else requires improvement? I have noticed the citations use an inconsistent date format with some using Y/M/D and others using M/D/Y. I am uncertain about what variation of English would be used for a Japanese game so I am unsure which way to correct that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Upon doing a brief read-through, I do notice a lot of issues with the prose, and I would reckon that sections like the "Reception" one would benefit from an overhaul. I will try to get to the article this weekend or next week if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure. FAR isnt supposed to be about removing article status. It can at least have the page have some fighting chance. GamerPro64 14:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response, and apologies for the long message. I have never participated in a FAR before, but I figured I should try to at least help somewhat given my knowledge of the game. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Aoba47, if you can do what you can for now, I will re-engage in a few days when I have more time to list anything else I see. User:Deckiller did a lot of work to help other editors at FAR in his day, so if you can help save this star, it would be grand! Do what you can for now, and ping this page when you need more feedback. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @GamerPro64: Apologies for my delay in looking at the article. I think the "Reception" section is the major area that should be overhauled. It does not address reviews for the remasters or any retrospective reviews. The structure as a whole could also use more focus, and I think the second paragraph on sales would work better as its own subsection. I'd be curious on your opinion on this section. I have never worked on something this popular so I am uncertain of how to balance length.
  • However, I will work on other issues first. I will get to the final paragraph for the "Versions and merchandise" section and "Music" subsection over the next few days, and check around for uncited material in the overall article. I am holding on the "Reception" section for the moment because frankly it will require the most work and I wanted to get your feedback on this first. Apologies for the ping. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Have you thought about asking the Video Game or Square Enix WikiProject for help? GamerPro64 20:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. I will post a message on both talk pages in the next day or two. I have not really worked on projects with active WikiProjects so it is not something I think of right away. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: WP:RECEPTION gives excellent advice for that section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the resource. The reception section should be completely rewritten. I have already said this, but my biggest concern is the gaps (i.e. retrospective reviews and re-release reviews). I have attempted to copy-edit this section, but I am not particularly satisfied with my first pass-through. While the rest of the article is in much better shape, this section alone would take in my opinion a substantial amount of work and time to bring to a FA level. I am sorry to say this, but this is the point where I have to stop. Hopefully, my edits were not harmful (and they can be reverted of course) and apologies again. This is just way too much for me right now. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much for trying; there is only so much any of us can do, and any improvement is worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

ElagabalusEdit

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2005, and it's now not up to FA standards. There are many unsourced sentences and paragraphs (for example the last paragraph of the Modern historians section doesn't have any proper source). There are also no uniformed source formatting. Then, the article relies too much on primary sources (Cassius Dio and Herodian), even the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (see for instance the section "Sexuality and gender controversy"; there are 9 citations to primary sources and only one to a RS (Grant)), despite the article saying this book is unreliable. I am not saying that these sources shouldn't be included in the articles*, but only with modern sources to back or criticise them. Therefore, the article patently violates 1.c (reliable sources) and 2.c (consistant formatting). T8612 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

T8612 I cannot see where you gave talk page notification, per the FAR instructions, nor have you notified relevant participants or WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here. I didn't use the template, perhaps that's why. Original author retired in 2006. T8612 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, so Mr rnddude’s 2016 post can serve as talk page notification. I guess. T8612 could you please use the template to notify all of the WikiProjects tagged on talk? The goal is to find someone who might be interested in improving the article, and the template explains how the process works. It would have helped to notify Paul August because the tools show he has a 15-year history on the article, which he edited this year. SandyGeorgia (talkcontribs) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Paul August and Llywrch who contributed on the nomination in 2005 are active on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't want to add to their busy talk pages. T8612 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: Done what? I don't see where you've notified me? Paul August 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, I didn't notified you. As I know you read the Wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a note for future reference: our goals with the notification are to cast a wide net to hopefully find someone to update the article, and give a brief idea of how the process works to people before they pop in here to immediately register a Keep or Delist. It is best to notify everyone even if you think they are following an article or a talk page because we can't assume anyone is aware or sees the nomination, and by posting to talk pages of editors, we may pick up some of their talk page stalkers, who tend to have similar editing interests. Another reason for being sure to notify is so the process is not slowed down. This nomination was ten days ago: should Llywrch or Paul August decide to work on improvements, we would now need to slow down the initial two-week period because they just found out about the nomination. And a final reason is that it can be offputting for editors to realize a FAR is going on that they weren't aware of ... short story: please always broadly notify using the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. Paul August 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I made a comment to this effect in 2016: Talk:Elagabalus/Archive_1#Featured Article, serious concers (sic). I didn't take any action in regards to it at the time because I had limited experience with FA and its processes, though I knew there was a delisting process, and eventually it just slipped away. To summarize my comments then: 1) multiple unsourced passages; 2) over-reliance on primary sources; 3) use of unreliable sources (Historia Augusta in particular). Those comments are still applicable, particularly the last two. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that ancient historians use "primary sources" to mean "sources published in ancient languages". By their standard, a book published today on Shakespeare would be a primary source, since he lived just four centuries ago and we're also writing in English. Needless to say, this is not the definition of "primary" that modern historians or Wikipedia use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Dio and Herodian are Elagabalus' contemporaries. They both lived during his reign. I have serious doubts you lived through Shakespearean times. The HA is plain unreliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Close discussion
  • I'll take this as a warning from you not to touch the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh? The article needs work. Contribute away. Your comparison to modern writers discussing Shakespeare just isn't applicable here, that's all. I'm not sure what part of my comment is warning you not to edit the article? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that ancient sources should be avoided because they don't necessarily follow WP:RS practices. Arguably there are some that have a reputation for accuracy (e.g. Polybius), but still, if it's true and due it has probably been mentioned in at least one source in the last 200 years. Anyway the HA does not have a reputation for factualness or accuracy, quite the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • At least some of these issues seem relatively easy to resolve. For example, I just went through and updated the section on Elagabalus's sexuality/marriages to replace the ancient sources with modern ones which provide more details (and which look to additional evidence for e.g. the timeline of the marriages and divorces, which I added based on those modern sources). In turn, I'll try to standardize the article to consistently use a single citation format and sfn templates later if I have time (or is there a gadget/script for this, like reFill?). -sche (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to easily save the article, unless you want to rewrite it entirely. As I pointed out, several sections rely on primary sources, and once you dig a bit in secondary sources, you see that there are often many different interpretations among modern historians. Elagabalus was vilified in ancient sources and they make it especially difficult to tell what really happened. If you want to rewrite the article, the first step is to include information from Martijn Icks, The crimes of Elagabalus : the life and legacy of Rome’s decadent boy emperor, published in 2012 (seven years after this article became FA), and Andrew G. Scott, Emperors and Usurpers should be cited throughout the article [Icks and Scott seem to be the two main modern sources]. Imo, the section on religion should be expanded; there must be one on his "black legend", and another on the role of women (his mother and grandmother). I also don't think you should remove all the primary sources, but put them in context. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I've now also revised and ref'ed the Family and Priesthood stuff, so it's supported by modern sources (including modern sources evaluating the ancient sources), removing a few things I couldn't find sources for, and adding some info where there's uncertainty among modern historians, e.g. over precise birth year. (I agree it wouldn't be appropriate to remove all mention of the ancient sources, but replacing the direct citations of them as <ref>s with citations of e.g. Scott's and others' summaries of them seems appropriate. In the section on marriage, I left in-text attributions i.e. "Cassius Dio states that...") -sche (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, (it's reasonable no-one notified me, since I had not previously done major work on the article that I recall, but) as far as the mention above of slowing down timelines: after I chanced to notice the FAR on the 14th, I've been revising the article, having at this point reworked the "Family" section, rewritten the first half of the "Rise" section, and revised the "Marriages" section, to cite modern sources and note places where there's uncertainty/disagreement among or noted in them. I'll probably make another pass later and trim a thing or two for which I was only able to find a single not-as-high-quality modern source to replace or compliment the period source it had been sourced to. -sche (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The FAR Coordinators will always relax time constraints when work is underway; please keep this page informed of progress ... thanks for digging in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've almost finished revising the "Rose to power" section (I just need to update the last paragraph to follow and cite modern sources). I substantially rewrote the first paragraph of the "Emperor" section, which had simply parroted the loaded (unencyclopedic) language of the ancient primary sources, but now gives an overview based on Scott (who evaluates/discusses a lot of other literature). (The rest of the section will indeed need rewriting, as others noted above, which I will work on.) I also started to edit the section on Dio-as-a-source, to mention places where modern biographers like Scott and Icks note that Dio's accounts are wrong or internally inconsistent. -sche (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I will look in when you are closer to finished; thanks for the work and the update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if he has time, but pinging Attar-Aram syria, who is knowledgeable Syrian/Roman figures. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Progress update, I rewrote more of the section on Elagabalus' emperorship (about half of the first subsection, having previously done the "Marriages" subsection). User Julia Domna Ba'al expanded the modern history section and added a bit to the section on the Augustan History, and replaced many of the primary source citations with Icks and other secondary souces. :) User Avis has made various improvements. The other half of first subsection on emperorship, the "Religious controversy" section and the "Fall" section remain to be redone (I am getting to them, or other editors are obviously welcome to beat me to it). (Once the body has been rewritten, I figure the lead can be revised at that point.) -sche (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR, good progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Paul August and Llywrch: as others have been at work here, and progress has been made, might you be interested now in engaging or have time for a glance? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this review because I disagree with one of the criticisms of this article: I have no problem with citing primary sources in history & biographical articles, as long as it is done properly. (And example of "properly" would be to present what the primary source says, then secondary sources to explain what needs interpretation or correction. Another would be to discuss the issues with the primary sources: not only their accuracy, but how thoroughly they cover the period; quality & quantity both need to be addressed.) After all, people access these articles to aid their research, which we can help by providing pointers to these primary sources.
And as I read this article, I see that this is not the direction this article is going, & from other comments believe that it would be a needless conflict to try to push this article in the direction I prefer. (After all, I am not a FA regular, & Wikipedia is not finished; there will be a time when I can prove that I am right on this with minimal conflict, & I am content to wait.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't ask for the removal of ancient sources though, just the addition of modern sources to comment on them. Typically, I would prefer to see something like this: "The Historia Augusta tells Elagabalus did that, but modern historians have rejected this.(ref HA) Smith thinks Elagabalus did this instead, while Brown suggests it was that.(ref Smith)(ref Brown)." That said, it's just my preference too. T8612 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The HA cannot be cited for 'modern historians have rejected this'. When modern historians state what the HA says, there is no need to rely on the (unreliable) HA. If modern historians don't state what the HA says, then it should not be cited, as it does not meet WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. This is simplistic reasoning. For one thing, the primary sources for Elagabalus include more than than the Historia Augusta. There is Dio Cassius, whose fragments is the principal authority for this period; he is augmented by Herodian, who is not as sound as Dio, but his text helps to fill in the gaps; & there is the evidence of coinage & inscriptions -- a quick glance at the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae alone shows six addressed to Elagabalus, & a more careful survey of the corpora would doubtlessly reveal many more relevant items.
Another matter is that, despite modern research, the statements in the Historia Augusta continue to haunt the non-specialist conception of his reign. Edward Gibbon cites from the HA in his monumental work -- who recounts the emperor's hetrosexual promiscuity while keeping his homosexual activities to a passing mention in a footnote. (I have to wonder how much it influenced similar accounts in such popular accounts such as H.G. Wells' The Outline of History or the Durant's The Story of Civilization.) And the HA provided much of the material for Elagabalus' legacy.
Lastly, one cannot lightly dismiss the Historia Augusta with one word & ignore it. Students of this period of ancient Rome are faced with a deficit of materials, & are forced to look wherever possible to make up the difference: whether wise or not, they plumb its fantasies in hope of uncovering some fragments of information that might cast more light on the subject. Which is why the HA remains a controversial primary source, & not one on which judgment has been passed, found wanting, & condemned to the darkness. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Sandy, I don't think I'm able to contribute much here. Paul August 12:37, 6 September 2020 (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.

Parkinson's diseaseEdit

Notified: :Doc James, Anthonyhcole, Jfdwolff, WPMED, WP Psych, WP Disability

Review sectionEdit

Parkinson's disease is one of dozens of medical FAs that have fallen out of compliance, mostly because their main authors are no longer editing, and no one has carefully kept the FAs up to snuff. Parkinson's was promoted in 2011, and its main editor has not edited since 2013. Almost all of the sources used in the article date to Garrondo's editing, and there has been almost no attempt to keep the article updated, although it averages about 5,000 pageviews daily (one of the highest for the Medicine project). There has been no response to updates needed since February. Problems are throughout but are particularly noticeable in the Research section, which contains numerous statements about current research that are dated; if these items were significant, they would be mentioned in secondary reviews by now. (That section should also be considerably trimmed, and has become a dumping ground.) Other problems that are easily noticeable is content in the lead that is out of sync with or not present in the body of the article. For example, 117,400 global deaths, life expectancy. Subtypes are not mentioned. Parkinson's research has advanced considerably since this article was written, but the article has stagnated. It is also highly cited to the NINDS rather than relying on the underlying more authoritative literature. Page numbers or section headings are needed on lengthy journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC needs some serious updating, no one has (yet) stepped up. (t · c) buidhe 06:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold on, PainProf has just indicated they may be willing and able to help with improvements.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Update, PainProf has started working, so I will join the effort (soon) and try to encourage others to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@PainProf:, I am not going to be able to take the lead on this; I have more on my plate than I can handle, and other medical editors don't seem to have stepped up or taken an interest. Could we get your opinion on where the article stands after the work you've done? I am concerned that you and I alone are not enough to salvage the star here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I need to look at this in more depth, I have to submit a big grant this week but will look over it again at the weekend PainProf (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
PainProf, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Let’s Move to FARC; there has been no other interest from the Medicine Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan UniversityEdit

Notified: LaSaltarella, BryanD, WP Higher education, WT Ohio

Review sectionEdit

This is a 2007 promotion whose main editor has been gone from Wikipedia for ten years. In the top 10 editors, there is no one who has touched the article in more than five years, and the associated WikiProject is defunct! In addition to the points raised on talk by Skdb on August 5, the article has not been updated and relies on very old figures and data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • In addition, there are MOS:IMAGELOC issues, and choppy paragraphing. (t · c) buidhe 09:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, no change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC and if there is some way to fast-track delisting, it should just be done. --Laser brain (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, no engagement, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist The lead section has exactly 1 sentence covering the history of the institution, before diving right into admission marketing - the lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. There are several unsourced sentences in the text, all data about admissions is fairly dated in the "Profile" subsection (2006, 2007, 2010). "OWU also has a highly respected music department." is sourced... to this website, that says nothing about a music department. The prose is not FA-level, with short paragraphs everywhere. Does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. No one has shown up to take on the serious issues that'd need to be resolved for this to remain at FA level, and my post initiating the process was over a month ago, so there's been ample time. The best path forward now is to delist. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy of mindEdit

Notified: Lacatosias, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Psychology

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is the oldest one in the template. I will quote talk page discussion:

The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Wikipedia over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. CodexJustin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of summary style, cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject, so will be of limited use in improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the many unsourced blocks of text and at least two citations to books with page references, there are parts that look like OR at first blush. There is even too much to fix to make it pass a B-checklist. My two cents, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
My knowledge on this topic is fairly limited, so I am not sure how much I can assist with this. Several of the later paragraphs read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. We should either restore the article to its 2006 state (which is unlikely) or demote it.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, one major edit (as indicated above), but much more needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include organization, style, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, in two years no one has shown interest in fixing the issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, no engagement, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist I spot several issues with the article, many of which have already been mentioned above. But still, the article has several uncited blocks of text, random sentences scattered around ("See also the problem of other minds."), sometimes wanders into the realm of WP:ESSAY ("This semantic problem, of course, led to the famous..." or "Several groups are inspired by these advances."), bad writing ("In the field of near-death research, the following phenomenon, among others, occurs: For example, during some brain operations the brain is artificially and measurably deactivated.") and so on. Given the complexity of the subject and the fact that no one is willing to work on the article at this time (or for the past two years), it should be delisted since it does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Edward VIIIEdit

Notified: DrKay, Politics, WT:MILHIST, WT:UK

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues versus the FA criteria, including uncited text and MOS problems (image sandwiching, among others). Furthermore, recent scholarly sources including the latest biography (Powell, Ted (2018). King Edward VIII: An American Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-251457-8.) are not cited, meaning the article is under-researched. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The couple of image sandwichesw look fine to me, even at 400px default. Powell's book is not exactly a full biography, but a treatment of what he says is a major theme in the Duke's life - but however much he liked aspects of America, he never lived there, & I don't see the omission as fatal. It should go in a further reading section though. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
To the contrary, reviews indicate that the book is a significant work which advances new ideas about the article subject. Without incorporating new scholarship the article cannot be considered either comprehensive ("it neglects no major facts or details") or well-researched ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the same link twice. It sounds as though the author is just winding up to give the book a good kicking when the preview stops. I must say i don't remember seeing British reviews. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if I made a mistake with copy pasting links, but there are other reviews, such as an academic one stating "The book offers acompelling and highly readable analysis of Edward’s life and fateful decision, one that offers enlightenment and diversion to all audiences. The Wallis Simpson story is thus no longer the linchpin of a monarch’s unprecedented abdication; instead, it is but one element in a long process of cultural estrangement." (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm more worried about the use of primary sources. We should not be relying so heavily on The London Gazette, contemporary newspapers, and even newsreels. Given the depth in which the subject has been covered, there is no justification for this. Equally, a significant amount of the material under "Titles, styles, honours and arms" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (who cares whether he had a medal from San Marino?) and should be removed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing; need some additional perspectives on the article's status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are 164 footnotes including many sources from the 21st century. It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm afraid at this time I don't see any compelling arguments that the new source needs to be cited. If the nominator can provide evidence that leaving this source out affects the articles comprehensiveness (ie the new book contains new research) I'd reconsider. Otherwise, there are many topics where you can achieve comprehensiveness by cited selected sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the absence of Powell's book is remotely fatal. I'd suggest however that the absence of material from Alan Lascelles' diaries is an issue. I appreciate that they are a primary source, but he worked for Edward for a decade, and knew him exceptionally well. Lascelles' insights into Edward's character are exceptionally revealing, and probably unique. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Gilberto SilvaEdit

Notified: GilbertoSilvaFan, Chensiyuan, WP Brazil sports, WP Bio sport, WP Football Aresnal

Review sectionEdit

This is a 2006 promotion with a signficant list of issues raised on talk that has gotten no response since May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Review by RetiredDuke

The main issue I found in this article that led me to write the talk page FAR notice is that there are many citations that do not support the content they should.

Just as an example, "In his second season, he was moved by the manager Carlos Alberto Parreira from central defence to a defensive midfield role where he flourished. He scored three goals in the 2001 season and became a revelation in Brazilian club football." - The source [1], says only that he is "One of Brazilian football's biggest revelations last year after joining Atletico Mineiro from their smaller rivals America where he was raised. A mainly defensive midfielder but he has good technique and passing." So it does not mention being moved by the manager and flourishing in the new position. Or scoring 3 goals in 2001. There are many such examples in the talk page notice that Sandy has linked to. Basically, it's a problem of verification and also a lack of citations in many other places.

At the time, I only reviewed until the end of the third paragraph of the Arsenal section. That's not even half of the article and turned up all those inconsistencies. To add to the verification problem, I also find that the time Silva has spent in Panathinaikos, Grêmio and Atlético Mineiro is not sufficiently fleshed out in the article, especially when we compare those sections with the Arsenal section, that describes his every step in (sometimes excessive) detail. Similarly, his performance in the World Cup that Brazil won, where he "featured prominently" and that earned him a transfer to Arsenal is glossed out in the transition between clubs. Then, the "Outside football" section seems a bit weak, just a collection of interesting tidbits in short, stubby sentences. In my opinion, the article does not meet the FA criteria at the moment. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC – Along with the issues raised above, there are a couple of sentences tagged as needed references, as well as a couple of untagged areas that appear to be missing cites. Overall, a good deal of work will be required to get this one back up to the FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, there has been a small bit of improvement, but there are still unsourced statements, organization problems, and anywhere one looks, poor prose is found (Despite Gilberto's high pass completion rate,[104] his passing has been described as erratic in the past. ... by whom? A paragraph that begins with: He has an animal named after him ... and doesn't get better ... etc). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist references still don't match the text, unreferenced at times, final stages of his career not expanded enough, "Outside football" section is not FA-level, some references not correctly formatted. Needs a complete overhaul to meet current FA standards. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

ManzanarEdit

Notified: Gmatsuda, ToeFungii, WP:NRP, WP California, WP History, WP Protected areas, WP Historic sites, WP Museums, WP Milhist, WP Japan, talk page 2020-02-28

Review sectionEdit

This 2007 promotion is well out of compliance; lots of uncited text, short stubby paragraphs, and see talk page notification from 02-28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I concur, it would take a bunch of work to get this back to FA status. In addition, the refs are not consistently formatted and second tier sources, such as websites (as opposed to scholarly sources) are used heavily so I believe this also fails 1c and 2c. buidhe 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Can you please make a specific list of problems, SandyGeorgia? Just glancing through the article, I'm seeing little in the way of the "short stubby paragraphs" mentioned. Please also tag any paragraphs that are missing references/sources with {{cn}} to make them easier to find. As for websites being used instead of scholarly sources, that's not a valid reason for delisting it. There are many very reliable websites out there. If you have a problem with specific websites being used, please make a specific list of those so that they can be adequately reviewed. The consistent formatting of refs is something you can fix yourself without too much trouble, Buidhe, and it would be very much appreciated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The FA criteria require the article to be "well researched" and "comprehensive". These cannot be satisfied unless the article is based on the most reliable sources available. Academic books and peer-reviewed articles are always going to be better sources than the Manzanar Committee (extensively cited), to start with. buidhe 07:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but it is up to reviewers to indicate if there are academic books and peer-reviewed articles that haven't been used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, Nihonjoe; I will add a list below. I see others have added some cns. (If someone brings the article otherwise to standard, I am happy to fix citation formatting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
SG review
  • External links and Further reading are concerning; they are huge. A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. I can see that some of them are photos (eg Ansel Adams), but an examination of how many of those links are needed-- and why they aren't used as sources-- is needed.
  • Sam problem with See also; it's pretty clear a lot of those don't belong there (eg Ansel Adams-- if he does, he should be mentioned in article).
  • In popular culture is listy and could be better organized to parapraphs.
  • Notable people could be paras rather than bullets, and one wonders if Ueno is notable, why they aren't redlinked.
  • The two-sentence para on vegetation planted in 2008 could be better worked in somewhere (that section suffers from proseline).
  • American Muslim stubby para added after promotion-- is this still true, or was this a NEWSY not-news one-time thing?
  • As of 2007 sentence needs review towards updating.
  • The Township section is stubby and needs better paragraphs.
  • Use of the word "today" throughout ... needs prose adjustment or "as of".

This looks saveable, but the extensive lists at the bottom of the article will require a lot of sifting and reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Nihonjoe I am having a look now (so sorry for the delay). I have removed your "fixed" templates from my post for two reasons: first, they are discouraged at FAC and FAR because those kinds of transclusions cause FAC to pass template limits, and second, because they alter my post-- I'll go through and check for all. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources

In addition to those listed in the further reading section, the following sources may be helpful in improving the sourcing of the article: buidhe 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

On closer examination, it appears that the article is not comprehensive either. The above sources would support a section about cultural life in the camp, at the very least. buidhe 23:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have access to these sources? If so, are you willing to create and populate the section you suggested? With all the COVID-19 restrictions in place, I don't have a way to use the university libraries I would normally have access to, and I don't have the $$$$ to buy all of these books. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Some of the journal articles are open access. I could email you pdfs of most of the rest if you wikimail me. Someone at WP:RX probably has access to the Springer chapters. buidhe 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Email sent. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Sent several articles. buidhe 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Structure

The notable people section seems a bit of a WP:COATRACK. That is, they appear to be covered in sources about the person, not about the camp. I am unable to find any quality article about a camp that follows this structure; to me, it would be much better to split off into List of inmates of Manzanar or equivalent, and integrate the notable people in text when discussing what they did at the camp or afterwards that makes them notable in connection to the camp. buidhe 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I would support that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you created the list, so I tweaked a couple things on it and added projects on the talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
SG second review
  • Digging in again. The citations are going to need considerable cleanup (I ran a script to fix the date inconsistencies). Before I do that, I would like to hear from Buidhe as to where we stand on the use of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • See below
  • This sentence in Popular culture:
    A made-for-television movie, Farewell to Manzanar, directed by John Korty, aired on March 11, 1976, on NBC. It was based on the 1973 memoir of the same name, written by Jeanne Wakatsuki Houston, who was incarcerated at Manzanar as a child, and her husband James D. Houston.
    It is unclear what is meant about her husband, James D. Houston. It reads as if he wrote the book with her, but he is not listed as an author. Was he incarcerated with her? Sentence needs repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    Her husband is listed as an author on the cover of the book. Look at the infobox image at Farewell to Manzanar. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What is meant by an "unlined" section of an aqueduct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    Aqueducts can be either lined or unlined. Unlined means it's a ditch with no stone, bricks, or concrete lining the walls of the aqueduct. Lining helps prevent loss through absorption into the surrounding ground. I suppose we could link it to Aqueduct#Open channels, but "unlined" is literally self-explanatory. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    Some people may be-- like me-- dumber than the average bear ... I grew up around said aqueducts, and had no idea there was any such definition! Anyway, I see it is linked now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There are several references to ten internment camps; should we not have a red-linked article somewhere? Or at least a note explaining what and where the ten were? If the ten are listed somewhere at Internment of Japanese Americans, they sure are hard to find! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    They are listed at Internment of Japanese Americans#WRA Relocation Centers. I've added a couple links to that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is the image caption about "wooden sign at entrance ... " in quotes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    I'm guessing because whoever added it thought that was the title of the image. I can't find anything indicating that, so I removed the quotes. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is MOS:SANDWICHing of images in the section, Life in camp; I suggest removing the Farm workers image, unless a different one can be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    I've removed one image and reworked the placement a bit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Contradiction in the lead:
    incarcerated during World War II from December 1942 to 1945 ... Long before the first of the Japanese American detainees arrived in March 1942,
    Is it March or December? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    It's March. I've corrected the lead to match what's in the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it me? I cannot locate either the 10,000 or the 1,500 in the citations given??
    Manzanar was first inhabited by Native Americans nearly 10,000 years ago. Approximately 1,500 years ago, the area was settled by the Owens Valley Paiute,[8][9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    That's covered in the archived version of the "NPSHistoryCulture" reference. It looks like the NPS changed the content of the site since it was used as a reference. Hooray for archived versions. :) ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is Fort Tejon? Wikilink needed.
    Linked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made a number of corrections, so will stop here for now, not having reviewed the entire article-- things are much improved, but still rough. If you all can let me know where you stand on incorporating sources listed above, I will continue reviewing and later clean up the citations (I have no idea what the first line under References means). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Second review by BuidheEdit

  • Sourcing still needs improvement.
    • We still have more than 20 references to Manzanar Committee, which should be replaced by reliable secondary sources.
    • The "Preservation and remembrance" section is mostly sourced to primary sources, advocacy groups, and news articles. We should improve the sourcing by replacing with cites to scholarly sources.
    • "Terminology" seems to be a political debate, mostly sourced to news articles and advocacy groups. We should look at scholarly souces to see the terms used there and/or their perspective on the terminology disagreement.
    • The sentence "Manzanar has been referred to as a "War Relocation Center," "relocation camp," "relocation center," "internment camp," and "concentration camp"." needs to be clarified as to which sources are referring to it as which term. Ideally, it should be sourced to a secondary source discussing the terminology.
    • I have flagged some individual sources where I saw issues.
  • I am concerned about coatracking in the "Before World War II" section. If the article is about the WWII internment camp, then background should be mostly restricted to what RS on the WWII internment camps have as relevant background, and much of the material should be moved to Manzanar, California. Per WP:OR, we should rely only on "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". It is especially suspicious to cite sources published before WWII.
  • I also do not believe the article is comprehensive; there is only 27kb readable prose and a lot of that is about events before/after the war. The sources above would support significant expansion of the "wartime" section, with more info about everyday life, culture, etc. buidhe 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • A few thoughts:
      • I don't see any reason to replace the Manzanar Committee references as long as they are providing facts. Please explain why you seem to think they are worthless as a source.
      • I can see losing most or all of the Before WWI section.
      • I find your use of "suspicious" to be ridiculous as it implies someone is trying to trick the reader. I don't see that at all in the article, and I wasn't the one who originally wrote it.
      • As for events after the war, since the work to make it a monument obviously happened after the war, of course there will be information from that time period.
      • I agree that more can be included about everyday life, but you seem to be very averse to sources like the Manzanar Committee, which is likely the only kind of source that you'll find about everyday life in the camp.
      • I'd love it if someone other than me could do more of the heavy lifting with rewriting and improving. Finding things that could be improved is relatively easy compared to expanding the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. Featured articles are supposed to be based on the most reliable sources, which ensures that we are presenting factually correct information and with NPOV. I am not sure whether Manzanar Committee is reliable for facts, but they are certainly an advocacy group that prioritizes activism over scholarship. That's fine but it does limit their usefulness as a source.
  2. I didn't mean that the person who added the reference was not acting in good faith, I just meant that it is a clear example of coatracking given the current article scope and poor use of references.
  3. Currently there are just four short paragraphs about "Life in camp". I'm pretty sure there's more information just in the sources listed above. Also Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Further reading has a list of many reliable books that probably cover Manzanar in some parts. This book, for instance, has very significant coverage of Manzanar, and it has the advantage of being fairly recent and by a high quality publisher.[1] I can send you chapter 4 "The Camp Experience" (pp. 154-202), which seems to be the most relevant. Its section on the riot is very pertinent and includes differing views on whether the rioting was caused by support for Japan.
  4. Right now I am quite busy with a bunch of other things to do, unfortunately. buidhe 21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robinson, Greg (2009). A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52012-6.
  • OK, I've gone through and heavily pruned the introduction, rewriting as a background section. buidhe 22:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I saw that. Thanks! I reorganized and renamed some of the sections to help the article flow better and to prepare for an expansion of the "Life in camp" section. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: Please stop editing for a minute. You keep undoing what I'm trying to do (through edit conflicts). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I didn't mean to get in the way. However, I do think that it's suboptimal to put the closing of the camp before describing it fully, and also the way the history section is organized as if there is continuity between pre-World War II history of the site and the Japanese relocation order. Please see Flossenbürg concentration camp for an example of Background — Establishment — Main stuff — Closure — Aftermath — Legacy, which I think works best for similar articles. buidhe 23:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would like to start cleaning up citation formatting, but stability is needed. There are numerous sources tagged as non-reliable from the Manazanar Committee, when those sources are reliable for the purpose used in the cases I've checked. Is someone going to add the Robinson book? Buidhe, when we have a volunteer (like Nihonjoe) willing to salvage an old FA, I am most interested in making it easy for him to do just that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'm waiting for my copy of the Robinson book to arrive. Should arrive before June 18, according to the tracking. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: The "Life in camp" section is now significantly expanded. I couldn't find anything in the sources I've looked at so far regarding other kinds of recreation (any non-sports, basically). I haven't had a chance to read the docs you sent me via email, though. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC, I am satisfied, I disagree that we can't use the Committee for some sourcing, and if there are specific items that are dubious or promotional from the Committee, they should be listed. This is good enough for a Keep for me-- not the best article ever, but good enough. @Nihonjoe and Buidhe: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I cannot support that action at this time. I took another look at the article and removed some content that seemed to be undue weight or was not about Manzanar. More worryingly, in the one reference I checked, I found failed verification content. Neither source cited says that Lange's photographs were archived because they were "critical", indeed how can a photograph criticize anything? And they do not state that her photographs *of Manzanar* were archived. I could live with the Manzanar Committee as a ref occasionally but the postwar section really should be sourced to the several high quality secondary sources available on the subject. I appreciate all the work that has gone into improving the article (and it really has improved a lot!), but I do not consider it well-researched at this time according to the FA criteria: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Buidhe: You already removed everything you objected to, so what, exactly, are you objecting to now? And what needs to be added for it to be as "thorough and representative" as you imagine in your mind? You can't go complaining about the lack of comprehensiveness without spelling out exactly what the perceived problems are. Please be more specific. Very specific. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I was perfectly clear, the postwar section needs to be sourced to high-quality, reliable secondary sources on the subject, currently many of the refs are non-independent (either US government sources or the Manzanar Committe, which is heavily involved). There is no lack of such sources and they are listed above, so I won't repeat myself. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Out of the 53 refs currently in the Closure and Preservation and remembrance sections, only 10 are specifically to the Manzanar Committee, and an additional 1 is to the Densho site, which might be considered too close by someone interpreting policies very narrowly. Even if the Densho ref is counted as the same as the Manzanar Committee refs, that's only about 21% of the refs used in that section. As for the US Government sources, they are pretty much all National Parks Service or referencing bills related to the topic, so those are very reliable and unlikely to be significantly biased. You seem to be in the minority here in refusing to allow these kinds of refs. The only time third party references are required is when establishing notability or if there's some controversial detail and a source is suspected of having a biased view. First party sources are perfectly fine when used to share a person's experiences or to share facts (which is what all of the Manzanar Committee refs are, as far as I can tell). I don't see a problem with using the Manzanar Committee refs how they are currently being used as none of the places they are used are dealing with anything controversial or disputed. We've removed all the iffy ones already. SandyGeorgia doesn't have a problem with them either. Perhaps you can add in some of these sources you seem so intent on having included? I don't have time to do that right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Featured articles, as I stated, are required to present "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"—which is not met here, as none of the independent perspectives on and reviews of the memorial site, which exist, are included. (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I am going to try to catch up here today. This is stalled, so perhaps needs to move to FARC to get more people to opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The only one who seems to be stalled is Buidhe. He seems to be under the impression that a FA must use every reliable source that he's presented, and that without them, the article is not good enough. He also seems unwilling to put them in himself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Strawman argument, I never said that. What I did say is that FA articles must follow the FA criteria, which includes being well-researched and comprehensive. I have argued above that the article at present does not meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Then make a list of what you think is missing, and which sources should be used for it. Just giving a huge list of possible resources and demanding that they be used before you'll support keeping the article as featured isn't helpful. Make very specific suggestions, along the lines of "This section (page numbers) in this book contains information not covered in the article". Without that, you're basically demanding that someone read many thousands of pages of books and then guess at what you think is missing. The only specific suggestion I've seen is a chapter in a single book I have but haven't had time to read yet (Farewell to Manzanar, I believe). Unless you can provide very specific issues that can be addressed, your argument for not keeping it as featured is flawed and not helpful in improving it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure why you say that when in my last comment I said that the postwar section / historic site needs to be based on, or at least include, independent sources / reviews of the site (I won't repeat the full list), rather than just being based on involved sources as it is now. (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Moving to get more input regarding this article's status wrt the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist First, I want to recognize the amount of work that has gone into improving the article. However, I don't believe that the current state of the article meets comprehensiveness or well-researched criteria. My primary concern as stated above is that the postwar section is mostly based on primary and affiliated sources, while neglecting secondary sources that would provide an independent perspective. Examples of information that could be added from these sources are more information about the community engagement process that led to the creation of the current exhibits[2] and what it is like to visit.[10.1080/13527250701228239] Another alternative would be concluding that the current historic site is a separate topic from the internment camp, and splitting off Manzanar National Historic Site. Hovever, if both aspects are covered in this article I do think independent sources are needed. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe: How does it look now? McStott is used quite a bit now, as are all but one of the articles you sent me. There are no sections where the Manzanar Committee is the only source now. The one that has the most (the Manzanar Pilgrimage section, which makes sense) also has three other sources used in addition to the four from the MC. You can see my changes here since your comment above. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I got here from the article itself, and I am not particularly familiar with the featured article criteria as they're widely applied (though of course I have looked at the criteria themselves as listed), but I do feel able to comment on some of the issues raised by User:Buidhe above. It is not uncommon, when doing humanities research about subjects that have not gotten a lot of attention, to find that the most accurate and detailed accounts are indeed by people with direct involvement. I have added information from the Public Historian article that Buidhe cites, but I note that the article is by Frank Hays, identified within the article as superintendent of the park. It's published in a highly reputable journal, which is good, but it may not be a coincidence that the richest sources of information would include people who work there. Thus, while it is true that more independent sources could be found (this LA Times story is OK--though, again, its primary source appears to be the late Mr. Hays)), they might not contribute that much in terms of comprehensiveness. On this basis I think it would be best to retain the article as featured. blameless 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think Nikkimaria and buidhe are not giving enough time for this article to be improved further. It's already an excellent article, and there is the one part that buidhe keeps harping on that could likely be improved further with some of the references he mentions above. However, he seems to be under the impression the article must be absolutely perfect in order to be kept as a featured article. No one is disputing any of the content in the article. Buidhe simply thinks one small section of it could be made better. Rather than delisting it and then having to go through all of the hassle to relist it, I think the FARC should be closed and we can move back to the FAR section to get some work done. Perhaps buidhe will even help out by adding in some of the sources he thinks should be used instead of requiring others to do the work for him. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That said, I've just expanded the article a bit more with additional references as well as cleaning up some of the existing references. I have at least one more article to use as a reference (the last of those buidhe kindly sent to me). This last one will add more details about life in the camp. If anyone can find some articles or books that can help with the "Manzanar Pilgrimage" section, that would be helpful. Of the 10 instances of citations in that section (8 if you discount those used multiple times), three are third party sources. Given the 130+ references in the article, I think having one section that has that many first/second party references is acceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • There's nothing preventing work being done during FARC, and nothing preventing an FARC from being closed as kept as a result. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • on March 3, 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed House Resolution 543 into law (Pub.L. 102–248; 106 Stat. 40).
  • contains an external jump that needs to be converted to a citation, external links don't go in article text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment: So, anything else need to be fixed? As I mentioned above, I think there are enough 3rd party refs in the section mentioned by buidhe that we should be okay. Are there any other objections, concerns, or whatnot? Is the article good enough (again) to retain its FA status? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have been at Keep for months now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - I read through this yesterday and reviewed the concerns noted here. I am satisfied that the work done is sufficient to retain Featured status, with due respect to buidhe's notes. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Could we get an update on anything outstanding from your perspective please? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Anton ChekhovEdit

Notified: Qp10qp, WikiProject Russia/Performing arts in Russia task force, WikiProject Theatre

Review sectionEdit

I was very reluctant to put this article in FAR, since it is very well sourced and written. I originally left some comments on the talk page yesterday and was planning to wait a week before nominating the article for review. However, after going through the archives and past comments on the talk page I see that the concerns I expressed have been brought up for at least 13 years, but still not addressed and that the main contributor, has not edited in WP since 2012. (Although I will notify them of this FAR nonetheless) Please see this comment from 2007 and this comment from 2011.

I will relay my comments from the talk page here that basically this article suffers from minor issues and major ones. Minor ones include inconsistent sourcing and overuse of images – after posting this FAR I'll fix the sourcing. The major ones however are more concerning, in that this article almost solely focuses on biographical information and a legacy section that I would argue is still lacking – especially in terms of Chekhov's direct influence on modernism in theater and literature in Russia. There is quite literally no section on his works, style or thematic material, making this article look empty in comparison to others, like William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway or Franz Kafka. Basically the article fails 1b and 2c. I am more than willing to work on the article, but would be very hesitant to do it alone, since I am not really familiar with Chekhov past his reputation. - Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think you made the right call; it definitely needs work. Looking through the images, while many of them are likely free due to their age, the tagging of the files doesn't meet the current expectations for FA. I'll work on those over the next several days to at least resolve that from your "minor issues". The major ones need someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can offer. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Further issues upon looking further, these issues have come up as well:
  1. There are 10 block quotes for some reason; definitely too many
  2. There a substantial amount of WP:LEADCITE, and the lead in general seems far too short, especially when compared with the articles of the playwrights and writers above I had compared this article to
  3. A lot of the references don't seem to be references, but rather notes (16, 66, 67) - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Another comment: If this article doesn't end up receiving the inclusion of a themes/works/style section then I still think it would meet GA standards, just not FA. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

AtomEdit

Notified: WT Physics, WT Chemistry, WT Elements

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was featured in 2008. Back then, this article was substantially different, and Wikipedia's standards for featured articles were also different. I think this article should undergo a second review to see if it meets modern standards. This is not to say this article is bad, I think it has improved over the years, but it should be reviewed under current standards, because our standards have risen. Kurzon (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

For reference, this is the article as it was just before becoming FA (July 2008): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=224375262 Kurzon (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Kurzon, could you please do the notifications? See step 6 of the nomination instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Kurzon did not do the notifications, so I am doing them now. This may mean the review time needs to be extended by a week. The talk page was notified on 1 April, but no deficiencies were specified. In fact, the nominator specified no deficiencies in the nomination either :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Physics isn't my area at all, but I'm seeing significant uncited text and MOS:IMAGELOC violations with sandwiching. Overall it definitely looks salvageable but someone will have to check the sourcing as well. buidhe 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    I removed two images that were creating text-sandwiching, and replaced another in that area with one that included more-text-relevant illustration (as well as encompasing several of the removed-images' ideas). DMacks (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The third graf of the lede ends with these sentences: All electrons, nucleons, and nuclei alike are subatomic particles. The behavior of electrons in atoms is closer to a wave than a particle. The former seems out of place; it might belong better in the second paragraph, where electrons, nuclei and neucleons are introduced. The second seems unclear to me. That is, I only know what it means because I already know about the topic and I can guess what it's trying to say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    It's unclear, but you understand what it is saying? How would you express it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I might cut it completely; it's redundant with the statements about the necessity of quantum mechanics in the first paragraph, and it's both loaded and vague. In quantum physics, we calculate the probabilities of events using equations that involve abstract "waves", and the events themselves look like the detection of particles. Neither aspect can be neglected; in what way is the behavior of subatomic particles within atoms "closer" to one aspect than the other? Is it helpful to lead the reader into imagining water waves when the waves we're talking about are oscillations in complex-valued probability amplitudes? The passage leading into it talks about radioactive decay: In this case, the nucleus shatters and leaves behind different elements. Do waves "shatter"? On top of that, the pictures [3][4] show clouds, not waves. Any reader who doesn't already know the material is being presented with disjointed statements, metaphors and imagery that they must try to fit together. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kurzon: could you please update whether this needs to "Move to FARC", or if you are satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Further reading needs cleanup, citations should be formatted ( oxford dictionary – valency), and several of the sources are red-linked by Headbomb's script, please check them, eg Ted Talk. Can we not improve on "current state" as a section heading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sourcing
I fixed the oxford-dictionary ref (actually I replaced it with a different ref), and I see no other refs that are missing substantial details. There are currently no redlinks in the references. I did some CS1 cleanup. A few Further Reading entries were removed since the original discussion here began, and I just removed a few more. @SandyGeorgia:, could you clarify what "Further reading needs cleanup" is needed (format, inclusion criteria, annotations, etc.)? DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@DMacks: Featured articles should be comprehensive; why are 14 additional listings needed in Further reading? What do they add that is not already in the article, and if they add something not already there, why isn't it there? What are the criteria for these listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional detail. I easily removed a third of them. I think more can also go (many are more about history of science which is its own article apart from mainly about atoms). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The overwhelming citation style is full ref format in the footnote. However, there are four that are WP:SFN (two each are the only use of their respective Bibliography and two are to different pages of one Bibliography entry). Should they all become standardized as full biblio in the footnotes themselves? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Back when first promoted, all references were full biblio inline AGRL or WP:SFN. Now we are down to 3–4 that use that latter style, so I'll convert those over soon. But now we also have many refs that are WP:LDR. It seems like we get a unified list in the References section, but is this something we should unify as far as being the "best we can" to avoid mixed WP:CITEVAR? DMacks (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Organization
I think this refers to the concern of XOR'easter regarding a few sentences' meaning and location? They seem to have been massively overhauled or removed altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • References

Headbomb's reliability script is returning a red link for:

  • Ghosh, D.C.; Biswas, R. (2002). "Theoretical calculation of Absolute Radii of Atoms and Ions. Part 1. The Atomic Radii". Int. J. Mol. Sci. 3 (11): 87–113. doi:10.3390/i3020087

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, Headbomb's script is returning multiple redlinks:
  • Who is Chad Orzel? And right there is an example of the citation formatting issues ... what is the author style used in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
What "red links" are there? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If you mean the Ted Talk, Chad Orzel isn't a quack. There are better sources for this than a pop science talk however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
And the link is helpful :) The four I listed above are flagged as pink by your script. Is there a difference between red and pink in your script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The script must be interacting with something, because only references being touched by the script is 10.3390/i3020087 (yellow, because MDPI) and ResearchGate/Zenodo (also in yellow, because those are general repositories and unvetted). The Chad Orzel link in the article is in red, for YouTube, but here it's plain since there is no actual link to YouTube. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to leave it to Headbomb and SandyGeorgia here, since possibly nobody else knows what script you are talking about, what the criteria are for "reliability", etc. But whatever it is, it's flagging a Journal of the American Chemical Society article as unreliable? DMacks (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb perhaps it's me, but I cannot locate anywhere on your userpage a link to or information about how I downloaded your script or instructions for installing it, so perhaps you can provide that info here and there? It appears to me that the problem here that is causing the sources to be flagged is that URLs are added (unnecessarily) to other sites that provide (only sometimes) the full text, and it's not clear to me if those are copyright violations. I remain confused about why they show as yellow links on some browsers, and pink on others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:UPSD? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Also I just inspected your User:SandyGeorgia/common.js page and you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js installed. So I suspect what you're seeing is red/pink/whatever for duplicate links, rather than unreliable ones. I can't reproduce the issue however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, darnit. I will have to try to deal with this after I finish dealing with that copyvio issue elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Formatting

The article uses three different kinds of dashes: spaced WP:ENDASHes, unspaced WP:EMDASHes (pick one or the other), and even spaced WP:EMDASHes, a no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of ShilohEdit

Notified: Tirronan, WikiProject Military History, Wikiproject Tennessee

Review sectionEdit

This 2007 FA just doesn't meet the FA requirements, at least note anymore. Honestly, there'd be a number of things with this article that I'd require fixing before passing this through a GA review. A number of statements and paragraphs lack citations, such as "Grant's career suffered temporarily in the aftermath of Shiloh; Halleck combined and reorganized his armies, relegating Grant to the powerless position of second-in-command. Beauregard remained in command of the Army of Mississippi and led it back to Corinth. In late April and May, the Union armies, under Halleck advanced slowly toward Corinth and took it in the Siege of Corinth, while an amphibious force on the Mississippi River destroyed the Confederate River Defense Fleet and captured Memphis, Tennessee. Halleck was promoted to be general in chief of all the Union armies and with his departure to the East, Grant was restored to command. The Union forces eventually pushed down the Mississippi River to besiege Vicksburg, Mississippi. After the surrender of Vicksburg and the fall of Port Hudson in the summer of 1863, the Mississippi River came under Union control and the Confederacy was cut in two.", which needs a citation for verification, "For the remainder of the war, the Confederate armies in the West would go through a long string of commanders, much like the Union in the east, as Davis searched for a leader who was the caliber of Robert E. Lee.", and claims of which leaders were killed. There's many of these, I'll try and mark them all with CN tags later. The entire notable veterans section is uncited. 12 external links for a FA probably isn't appropriate, and some of the references are unreliable. A blogspot page is cited here, as are gems such as "lyricsinterpretation.com". There's several self-referencing popular culture things, such as the games. Additionally, there a major reference formatting issues. In the version that exists while I'm writing this, references 1, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 60, 129, and 130 are just URLS, nothing else. Other bad refs include "waymarkings.com" and "Essential Civil War Curriculum". Between the formatting, lack of citations, and bad refs, this isn't an FA, and isn't close, either. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Part of footnote 125 reads, "The other references to this article do not make this claim, perhaps due to the uncertainties of the actual casualty figures in the earlier wars," which smacks of WP:OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I fixed up the formatting a bit, but the article clearly needs a huge amount of work to make FA status for reasons explained by Hog Farm above. For instance, the popular culture section should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. buidhe 17:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The problems with this article would be easier to fix than delist. Most of the cns are to uncontroversial statements, for example, Johnston's shrugging off of his wound is easily reliably sourced (and I've done that). essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com is the site of historian Timothy B. Smith, who has written several academic treatments of the battle. Yes, the statements should have been referenced to one of his books, but the nominator should have at least examined the link before referring to the site as a "bad source." Having gone through the concerns raised by the nominator, it appears most of them could simply being resolved by being bold, for example the external links may be excessive but they can simply be removed if necessary and are not a reason for delisting. Several of the uncited paragraphs are mere chronological recitations of subsequent events, such as Lew Wallace's lack of further military advancement and the summary of the Mississippi River campaign up to the fall of Vicksburg - these can be easily cited from the books found at their main articles. As for notable veterans, while the section may be unreferenced now, its claims can easily be verified and referenced. The popular culture section was cluttered with non-notable mentions that were rightly removed, but given the quick fix the problems mentioned do not justify the extreme remedy of delisting. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (EDIT: All of the citation needed tags have been resolved in some way, and the flagged unreliable sources removed.)
  • Kges1901, keep/delist isn't declared at this stage, but if you feel the problems are easily resolvable please do go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing and citation

The first citation is unformatted, and this doesn't look reliable.[5] (Quick glance only, not a comprehensive list of sourcing or citation issues, but indications that a check is needed.) And many citation formatting issues, samples:

  • [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018.
  • "The Battle of Shiloh Summary & Facts". Civilwar.org. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Orphan Brigade having received a few Enfields is cited to an 1898 brigade history, but I have removed the specific mention as there were also other Confederate regiments with Enfields, and there is no reason to single out the Orphan Brigade in this case. There is secondary discussion of the weapons, however, and I have added the relevant citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

There's some other sourcing issues, too. I just noticed that Ref 135 seems to be citing another Wikipedia article. That's yikes in a FA. Hog Farm (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Have removed the statement in question as it is based on official casualty figures which have been questioned and it basically states that the war intensified and continued which is already known to those familiar with the Civil War, and implied later. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, numerous issues. External link and Further reading farms suggest the article may not be comprehensive or updated; multiple cite ref errors and incomplete or poorly formatted citations (samples: "The Battle of Shiloh". and [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018); MOS issues (markup in section headings which are also poorly named, missing converst and NBSPs); deficient prose (as a sample, see this section); text hidden in a template; one entire paragraph is a single quote in the "Battle" April 7 section. "In his memoirs, Grant intimated that ... " followed by a direct quote ?? It looks like this was once a fine article, as the bones are there, but the disrepair is everywhere. The version that passed FAC in 2007 did not have some of these glaring issues, and was 4,500 words; the current version, at 7,900 words, has been damaged and the content should be re-reviewed by MILHIST. I doubt it would pass GA, and do not believe this article can be repaired in the course of a FAR. Sad when the original writer moves on and once fine work deteriorates. Perhaps a rewrite will involve a revert and starting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, style and sourcing. 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm could you please update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: My computer is in the shop, I'll give this a close combat through once I get it back. Hog Farm Bacon 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Issues

Background and plans

Given that this level two heading only contains a level three heading, there's some structure issues here. Some background information before February 1862 would also be helpful, it picks up rather abruptly a year in as is.
  • I have removed the level three heading as I don't think we need a non-military context for this as Shiloh is a battle not the war in general. Thoughts on my summary of the Western Theater situation? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Thanks

Throughout the article there's some minor copy edit issues, especially with current MILHIST MOS (for instance "Shiloh Campaign" vs. "Shiloh campaign"), but these would be rather easy fixes.

File:Shiloh Battle Apr6pm.png is made by a Wikipedia user, but it's unclear what sources User:Hlj used to create the map, so the accuracy of the map is undetermined.

Several of the other maps are also Hlj creations without any sourcing where Jesperson got the information. The user seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, but the maps are still user-generated without clear sourcing.

  • The argument you make about Jespersen is repeatedly made and honestly I think that his credentials should be added to map descriptions in order to clear this up so that the following does not need to be stated again. Jespersen is a professional cartographer who makes these maps for a living, unlike most other users creating maps. Jespersen created new maps that were used in William Glenn Robertson's River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign, published in 2018 by University of North Carolina Press. In Slaughter at the Chapel: The Battle of Ezra Church, 1864 by Gary Ecelbarger (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), Jespersen is described as a "professional cartographer" in acknowledgements for creating maps used in the book. Other works include for which he created the maps included David Powell, All Hell Can't Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga-Missionary Ridge and Ringgold, November 24-27, 1863 (Savas Beatie, 2018), Sean Michael Chick, The Battle of Petersburg (U of Nebraska Press, 2015), Mellott and Snell, Seventh West Virginia (UP of Kansas, 2019), Jones et al., Gateway to the Confederacy (LSU Press, 2014), Dunham, Allegany to Appomattox (Syracuse UP, 2013), Faust, Conspicuous Gallantry (Kent State UP, 2015). I think these are pretty impeccable credentials that go above the normal standard in WP. Kges1901 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


The Aftermath section relies very heavily on Grant's personal memoirs, which is not really independent and is a touch biased towards Grant's viewpoint.

The Significance section could use expansion, this was a very important battle.

More structure issues: the level two sections Honors and commemoration and In popular culture are too brief to be stand-alone level two sections.

References

A total mess. Formatting is way off. A mixture of short and long citations, no real consistency. Most of the web citations are missing key things such as authors, publishers, dates, etc. A mixture of SFNs and other citation styles, no consistency whatsoever.
Not sure that "erenow.com examination prep materials" is particularly reliable, especially with the plethora of reliable sources on this topic.
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that master's thesis is far from the best source available.
Can't tell how reliable greatamericanhistory.net is, unsure of "by Gordon Leidner of Great American History" credentials. Again, far better sources can be found for this topic.
Unsure about Scout.com, looks to be different than Scout.com
  • Removed as redundant. Most of the material added with said reference duplicated the more concise summary in the preceding sentences. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The 7th Arkansas Infantry.com is not a good source.
Waymarking is not reliable.
  • Removed as redundant. Kges1901 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Grant's memoirs are cited in multiple different ways

Further reading is a formatting mess.

Several periodicals such as the Blue and Grey are cited, but need ISSN numbers.

Nevin, the Time-Life books author, is cited 8 times. Time-Life isn't a terrible source, but there are far better scholarly works to choose from. Looking at the further reading bloat, it seems pretty clear this article uses lower-quality print and online sources in several places, ignoring better available scholarship.

There's a lot of work yet here to be done. Hog Farm Bacon 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: You make some crucial points. I'll take a crack at the formatting and information of the sources and then come back to discuss reliability and the other issues further. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: The formatting of sources and references should be good now, although I couldn't find ISSN numbers for the two Blue and Grey articles. Some things that perhaps Tirronan could clarify: I'm confused what the "Official Records, Series I, Volume X, Part 1" refers to, is it in reference to the "U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901." – because the link for that is here rather than a specific article/book. I'm also unsure which edition of Grant's memoirs is used for citations like 28 and 112, is this the book cited in ref 106 or 94? Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: Link's wrong for the ORs. The citation looks to be reasonably correct, I'll try to find the correct link over the next couple days. Basically, the ORs are original military reports organized into large books. There's fifty or sixty some volumes. Hog Farm Bacon 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Wondering if you might have a chance soon to look through the correct link? Also, for you and Kges1901 any thoughts on removing the In popular culture section completely? At the moment it's a just an essay about Shiloh, a poem that depicts Shiloh (but also most of the Civil war...) and a movie that depicts Shiloh but among many other events. Seems mostly trivial and containing things that are not particularly notable. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, the references to the battle in the pop culture section are tangential to the battle itself and they do not receive coverage in secondary sources about the battle itself. As a result, I would agree with removing the section as it is thus inevitably a magnet for trivia. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Kges. Nix it. I forgot about that OR link, I'll hunt it down tonight. Hog Farm Bacon 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed - Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: - I believe the correct link is [6]. In order to fit the source consistency requirement, the OR citations should probably be something like "Official Records 1884 p. xxx" with a full citation in the sources section. I'm getting 1884 for this volume from [7]. 1884 should be used, instead of the range, because a specific volume is being cited. Hog Farm Bacon 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)