Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ecclesiastical heraldry/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [1].
Ecclesiastical heraldry edit
Review section edit
This August 2006 promotion has not been reviewed since and has significant amounts of uncited text. While some work occurred in mid-December, things have stalled since then, and it will take some heavy work finding the exact references used and making sure things haven't crept in. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC there's still a lot of uncited text, and it's possible that edits in March added more uncited text. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - no engagement, issues remain. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: unsourced paragraphs and statements, including words to watch. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist still not engagement, issues need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree there has been no engagement... from the FAR "reviewers". Kay asserted that paragraphs are unsourced. I looked at the article and that appears to me to fail verification. Kay also asserted there are "words to watch", with no examples of anything problematic. I could touch it up but I see little reason to since nobody has provided a single actionable item in the 4+ months since the article talk page "notice" Gimmetrow 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Gimmetrow thanks for responding above. Sometimes editors wait until someone says, "I will fix it" before giving a detailed review, because they are time-consuming and its disheartening when a detailed, time-consuming review is ignored. I'm happy to give some detailed, actionable items below. Although I will not be engaged in the initial cleanup of the article, since I am not knowledgeable in this topic area, I am happy to review the article later as a non-expert to improve the prose and point out areas that are unclear. Some actionable items to improve the article are:
- 1) At a minimum, I expect every FA article to have a citation at the end of each paragraph. For some paragraphs, the last sentence does not have a footnote. Is this information verified by a source? If so, it should be cited. If not, it should be removed. If it would help, I can add citation needed tags to the article.
- 2) There doesn't appear to be any post-2007 sources. This makes sense because that's when the article was promoted to FA status. Is there any updated scholarly material we can cite? Perhaps there is some additional information we should add to the history section.
- 3) There is some MOS:SANDWICH happening in the article. Are all the pictures necessary? Maybe some of them should be removed.
- Once these are addressed, please ping me and I will conduct another review. Thanks for help bringing this article back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - It looks like Gimmetrow has addressed the image layout issues, but the sourcing comments in the discussion above are still at an impasse. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm probably still at delist here. There's still a good bit of uncited text that isn't quite WP:WTC exempted, and there hasn't really been much work going on here for about three weeks. Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now at strong delist. There's been no engagement at all, just a bit of bad-mouthing of reviewers. Gimmetrow basically calls me a liar for claiming that there are unsourced paragraphs. There are obviously unsourced paragraphs: e.g. first paragraph of the 'Personal design' section, second paragraph of the 'Ecclesiastical hat' section, third paragraph of the 'Mantle' section. Unsourced words to watch include "often" and "traditionally", which are explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but there are many, many other unsourced claims and words that require attribution, including "reduced to only their shields", "symbolize mortality", "typically", "entirely", "usually", "intended", "same principle", "entire", "normally", "rather than", "never", "because", "notable", "ornate", "rare", "appropriately", and so on. DrKay (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They are "words to watch", not "words to avoid". Just about any "rule" in heraldry has exceptions, so the literature itself uses "often", "typically", "traditionally" and "normally". I put a footnote on one use of "often" but I'm not sure it's worthwhile to footnote every one of these, and to remove these qualifiers would usually result in incorrect statements. Gimmetrow 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist I concur that many of the unsourced sentences/paragraphs do not describe common knowledge and thus need to be sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.