Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2021

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept edit

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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [1].

Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory edit

Notified: Martyman, Australia noticeboard, 2020-12-28

This is a 2005 promotion whose main editor hasn't edited in almost a decade. I noticed the talk page in early December, and Grahamec did what they could, making a lot of improvements, but there are some issues that Graham could not fix. There is some uncited text, some citation cleanup needed, some page ranges that need to be nailed down to more manageable size, and with some very dated sources, it is not clear that the article is updated. Hopefully someone will pick this up, as this should be an easy FAR save if one knows the territory. I am not sure if allhomes.com is a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated the map sources to a 2017 hardcopy street directory (luckily the streets and buildings haven't been moved). Added the zoned high schools for the suburb. Allhomes is an online real estate database/catalogue/news site that is owned by Domain Group (a family of real estate newspapers/databases) that was owned by Fairfax Media (owner of the Sydney Morning Herald, The [Melbourne Age, and The Canberra Times) which has now been taken over by Channel 9. You can find Allhomes/Domain analysis pieces on property that are carried directly on the Canberra Times/SMH/Age website, so they are like a single-topic newspaper with an editorial board etc, similar to sports websites that have commentary/reports + statistics databases. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That resolves allhomes, thanks for improvements, I will look in later (iPad typing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bumbubookworm I can't sort what Gugler 2008 is supposed to be, and whether Gugler 1997 is supposed to be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yarralumla Neighbourhood Plan, is cited several times, with no information about what it is, full source info missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we have copyvio from this source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is ACT ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ah ha ... Australian CapitalTerritory, d’oh. The acronym needs to be defined somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have spelt out the ACT, although In Australia is almost never called by the whole name. Mind you the distinction between Canberra and the ACT is also obscure, more so that between Washington and DC, because it covers the great majority of the metropolitan population (but it also includes a great deal of absolute and beautiful wilderness).--Grahame (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is the need to define the acronym before its first occurrence (and to let the rest of us dummies know what it is :) I have done this to get the acronym moved up, and to explain that Canberra is in the ACT earlier on. Pls check, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyedit needed if we can sort the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have addressed most of the copyedit needs, but there are outstanding questions below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber, Peacemaker67, and Ian Rose: are any of you Aussies able to address any of the above? There is a little bit of this, and a little bit of that, and I don't speak Aussie English, and don't know what some of the terms are. Or can you recommend an Australian editor for this task? I am particularly concerned if there is copyvio; if not, this bronze star should be salvageable. Alternately, if it is not salvageable, it would be helpful for you all to say so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Australian Heritage Database listing of the forestry school has a creative commons notification at its bottom. Gugler 2008 should have read Gugler 1997 and I have now fixed.--Grahame (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thx, will fix that with incite attribution later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your comment on the talk page, is there an issue with UBD/street directories in general or is it because the street directory is old [I have validated with my 2017 paper version that everything is still there] Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbubookworm, I cannot decipher to whom or about what talk page comment you are referring here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to Grahamec saying 'I must say I'm not happy with all the geographical sourcing to UBD Canberra, which could easily be changed to OpenStreetMap, but that is probably OR' Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Australian Heritage Database

Diannaa, the Australian Heritage Database used in this article, [2] has a CC BY 3.0 AU note at the bottom. Can I implement the trick you did at the bottom of this diff for attributing it within the citation? Also, a small amount of text is verbatim, with some minor alterations: I am unclear what I need to do with the actual text. From this version: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia The Commonwealth and the states agreed in 1920 that a single forestry school was needed to supply an urgent need for well-trained foresters.
    Source The first Interstate Forestry Conference, held in November 1911 and attended by heads of State forestry services of NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland and the government botanist of Tasmania, resolved that a single forestry school be established to fulfil the urgent need for well-trained foresters. However, there was no further action until in 1920 a Premier's Conference agreed to establish the school in NSW. (small parts are verbatim, do they need to be quoted, and it appears that our text glosses over the 1911 date)
    I have worked on the chronology, which did gloss over the 1911 agreement. Incidently, well-trained foresters were required to spread Monterey pines, which are facing extinction in Monterey, but grow like a weed in Australia, especially around Canberra, although they are fire-prone.--Grahame (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wikipedia Land was set aside in 1926 for the Commonwealth Forestry School at Westridge near the brickworks and Westbourne Woods.
    Source I am not finding support for this exact wording in the source. No verbatim text, but we may need to work on the text to better reflect the source.
    "Setting aside land" is probably the wrong term. All land in Canberra remained in government ownership until the 1980s. Strictly speaking it still is, but the situation is now more complex. What was meant was the government had assigned a site, but the source doesn't say when this happened, although it must have been in 1925 or 1926.--Grahame (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wikipedia The now heritage-listed Forestry School and the associated principal's residence Westridge House are located on Banks Street, Yarralumla.
    Source This exact text is not supported by the source. Again, no verbatim text, and we may need to rework the text to avoid some of what now looks like original research, but could probably be sourced elsewhere.
    We have 2 sources headed "Westridge House & Grounds, Banks St, Yarralumla, ACT, Australia" and "Australian Forestry School (former), Banks St, Yarralumla, ACT, Australia". I'm not sure what the issue is.--Grahame (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The references may not have been precise enough, so I have added both references at that point.--Grahame (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wikipedia The school was initially established in March 1926 at the University of Adelaide, which had Australia's only forestry course at the time.
    Source Adequately paraphrased, but I cannot see that the source supports Adelaide having the only course at the time.
    I can't find a reference to Adelaide having the only forestry course at the time, so I have deleted it (and added a reference to Charles Lane Poole, although there seems to be a disagreement over a hyphen).--Grahame (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good enough, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wikipedia Its permanent building in Yarralumla was designed by Federal Capital Commission architects J.H. Kirkpatrick, and H.M. Rolland.
    Source Adequately paraphrased, reflects source.
    No fix needed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wikipedia It is built in the Inter-War Stripped Classical style as a single storey rendered brick building with a parapet and a hipped tiled roof.
    Source The Australian Forestry School is a fine example of the Inter-War Stripped Classical style of architecture, being symmetrically composed, divided into vertical bays, with a central entrance and roundels suggestive of classical entablature. Other features are stepped parapets, round arched openings at the entrance and projecting bay ends, and a hipped tiled roof. (seems OK?)
    No problem here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wikipedia Various Australian woods, including Queensland maple and walnut (Cryptocarya palmerstonii), red cedar, red mahogany, hoop pine and mountain ash, were used throughout the building.
    Source Australian timbers from various States, including Queensland Maple and Walnut, Red Cedar, Red Mahogany, Hoop Pine and Mountain Ash, are used throughout the building in floors, doors, wall panelling, ceilings and trimmings. (do we need to quote this? ... what about insertion of Cryptocarya palmerstonii? Casliber should that be in italics, and is it needed?
    Cryptocarya palmerstonii was my surmise after looking into online sources, but it would be useful to have an expert opinion in the absence of an article on Queensland walnut or Cryptocarya palmerstonii. Of course the reference to Cryptocarya palmerstonii (and it is not the only possible interpretation of Queensland walnut, which is apparently not a well-known tree) could be omitted altogether.--Grahame (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the sort of thing that Casliber would know, so I hope he will look in. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wikipedia It opened in April 1927 prior to its completion in June 1927 and its first students started in 1928.
    Source Construction of the school commenced in July 1926 and it was officially opened on 11 April 1927, with 16 students and three permanent lecturing staff, as well as Lane Poole. ... Although the School had opened in April 1927, the building was not completed until June that year and the formal opening was not until 24 November 1927. (Adquately paraphrased, but I am unable to find support for first students starting in 1928.)
    Fair point, I don't what gave me the impression that students started in 1928. I have now fixed.--Grahame (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikipedia Due to financial stringency during the Great Depression and other priorities during the Second World War, it had few students in its first years.
    Source Supported by source and paraphrased.
    No fix needed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikipedia The Forestry School was absorbed by the Australian National University in 1965 and forestry courses are now carried out at its main campus in Acton.
    Jacobs was followed by K.P. McGrath as acting Principal until responsibility for forestry education was transferred to the Australian National University early in 1965 (Boden, 1993). There are several reasons for the move, one of which was the need to provide more opportunities for postgraduate training such as the MSc and PhD available at the University. (where do we source "now carried out at its main campus in Acton?)
    I have added a source for current location.--Grahame (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to copy the text without paraphrasing as long as it's properly attributed and compatibly licensed. The inline attribution I showed you is a good way to do it. I hope the numbered points 1 through 10 are not for my attention?— Diannaa (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Diannaa; no need to look at points 1 through 10, which are content matters ... I just needed to know from you if I could implement that inline attribution within the citation as you taught me. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, [3] (we still need to sort some of the content matter, though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is derogatory: "Yarralumla Primary School, a public school, opened in 1957. Half of the original primary school is now used as a behavioural centre catering to problem students."[4] And not supported by the source. Casliber are they referring only to the autism center, or can you patch up the "problem students" wording somehow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the unsourced and probably overstated or untrue comment.--Grahame (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous: It remained standing as of 2008.[5] Is this statement supposed to refer to the Woolshed, or the Governor's House? If Woolshed, source does not say that. If Governor's House, there must be a newer source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They both still stand, although Government House is highly modified. Still they both have their own article, so it is not necessary to state that they are still standing, so I have deleted the comment.--Grahame (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNDUE? The dam is designed to handle a once in 5,000-year flood event. ... In other words, it doesn't really handle floods at all. Since the dam has its own article, does this text need to be in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being able to handle a once in 5,000-year flood means it can handle all floods except one that it is likely to occur only once in 5000 years. Major roads are often designed to handle 1 in 100 year floods, although in flood-prone areas, 1 in 20 years is considered good and 1 in 1 year is often acceptable. Mind you, it is not particularly relevant here and more relevant to the article on the dam and so I have deleted it. A few years, I was pushed back by police when I and many others were trying to photograph it in flood because they thought it was going to collapse.--Grahame (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I sure had that one backwards! At any rate, not needed in this article, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, it would be nice if Cas or someone could resolve the walnut query, but this is good enough to Keep. The only thing I see that still needs adjustment is one statement in the lead that is out of sync with the body ... and as of 2011 was home to approximately 3,000 people ... but the body cites a 2016 source, so the "as of" date is off. Grahamec, fine effort; you own this one now :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've handled the as of date in the lead. Hog Farm Talk 16:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC - I see a single sentence lacking a citation in the Suburb amenities section, but that can easily be resolved outside of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also concerned about some of the additions. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New text added:
    The blocks enclosed by Banks, Schlicht, Mueller and Weston Streets in the immediate vicinity of the shops are zoned RZ2, allowing for dual occupancies and duplexes to be built, while the remainder of the suburb's residential area is zoned RZ1, allowing for detached houses.[failed verification][original research?] [6] The source for this is a map. Where are the zoning definitions, and this is original research from a primary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with writing geography articles, so others may have more experienced viewpoints, but is the difference between duplexes and attached homes in zoning seems a little WP:UNDUE to me. Industrial vs residential zoning maybe, but would removal of the content be justifiable? Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find the zoning on the Territory Plan, although I don't think it is possible to link to a particular part of the map. In principle RZ1 only allows single houses to be built on a block and RZ2 allows small multiple units. Hackles have been raised in Yarralumla by many development trends over the years, including the redevelopment of housing blocks, proposals for the redevelopment of the brickworks (which has been going on for 30 years and is still unresolved), whether Stirling Park really is a park and whether embassies should be built on a nearby "horse park" (where I picked mushrooms when I was 5). I suspect that the easiest thing to do would be to delete the sentence.--Grahame (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make the Allhomes map work by clicking on "Territory Planning Zones.--Grahame (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is all undue if not mentioned by a source; we can’t analyze data from a primary source map ... we can describe locations from a map. If hackles have been raised, there should be something in the local press. In fact, if hackles have been raised in a long-term controversy, not covering that from local press would fail comprehensive. Where are the zoning definitions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is moving backwards with new text additions. It has gotten into synth, OR, and UNDUE with addition of new text that analyzes data from primary sources and combines sources to reach conclusions, while it also apparently neglects local coverage of controversial issues. I have struck my "close without FARC". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumbubookworm and Grahamec: is this article stable now? The problematic original research has been removed, and I can find no other reliably-sourced mentions of zoning issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is stable as far as I am concerned.--Grahame (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, article appears now to have stabilized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just read through this article as a Canberran, and think that the FA criteria are sufficently met at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 22:03, 13 February 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.
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 kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [7].

Renewable energy in Scotland edit

Notified: SAMurrai, Ben MacDui, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Scotland, talk page 15-04-2020

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is severely out of date. Because developments in renewable energy are very fast, even the structure of the article needs a complete overhaul. Just a few out of many examples:

  • Solar PV is only described under the section heading of microsystems, whereas this is a mainstream technology for electricity production even in Scotland.
  • The recent events section stops in 2014.
  • Wind energy is now massive in Scotland, but gets equal attention to smaller contributions.
  • The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report has further increased the profile of the issue. (two major IPCC reports have come out since).

Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also some serious citation issues, as well. We've got bits of uncited content sprinkled in various areas. There's a book cited without specific page numbers given. There are multiple cites to the home page of Scottish Renewables, and as the homepage is frequently updated, that (out-of-date) information is no longer supported by the citation. There's a bare URL in the references. Ref 45 is an uncited footnote, not a reference. A sampling of online references finds multiple dead links. Many of the references are old enough they seem to be outdated. So there's much work needed here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Femkemilene: Thanks for alerting me - I can't fault your analysis. It was one of my first FAs and I quickly discovered that keeping a topic like this up-to-date is a fair amount of work. I kept at it for a few years but as the subject became higher and higher profile (which is good news) I became less involved in the industry than once I was and the pressure of life and work has also led to me being much less active as an editor herein. Can you give me a timetable for 'moving the article to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list' (per my talk page). It's not out of the question that I will find the time over Xmas to do a revamp and it would be good to keep the FA star for COP 26 - to be held in Glasgow - if possible. Ben MacDui 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's great to hear you might have time I'm relatively new here, but I think waiting till Christmas is definitely okay. I might do some small updates in the mean time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time is usually granted, and considering my past experience with Ben MacDui, I recommend the wait. It is possible the Coords would put the FAR on hold (meaning they sometimes remove it from the page with a calendar note to bring it back ... in six weeks in this case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll leave it live in case someone else is interested in helping out, but it shouldn't be a problem to extend the timeframe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui are you still planning to work on this? (Ben MacDui has not edited since 8 December.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to start today or tomorrow. Ben MacDui 10:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a start at least. Half of the 'Toolbox' links are not working at present for some reason and manually checking ref links would be a tedious business so that may be it for today. However, there's not much point in tarting up the refs if the content is not close enough to being up to the mark. Comments welcome. Ben MacDui 13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old.

  • I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
  • Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
  • The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
  • For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
  • Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
  • Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
  • Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
  • Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
  • The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
  • I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
  • The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2016.0374?journalCode=elr. It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
  • If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
  • How many see-also's are needed?

Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me for a re-visit when Femke's concerns are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments
  • The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
  • The blueish colour in the "Electricity generated by source" legend is different to the colour of the bars for me. Is that the case for you?

CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Something is wonky; perhaps RexxS would have time for an accessibility and color check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really short of time right now, but the colour mismatch is because the bars have transparency applied, but the legend doesn't. It's a bug in the Graph:Chart extension. I've reduced the transparency in the blue bars to make them render nearer to the colour in the legend as a work-around for now. I'll try to do a proper accessibility check as soon as I can make some time again. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMD reply

Femke Nijsse wrote: Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old.

  • I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
    • >I just removed it.
  • Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
    • >Done - expanding wind power further would I think just involve listing yet more sites and there is a 'main article' about this topic.
  • The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
    • >This was not so long ago for some of us! Besides, it is referencing past events.
  • For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
    • >Replaced by the CARES system, (which is regretably bureaucratic).
  • Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
    • >I am not of the view that sources from 2007 are "too old" if the information is still accurate, but I agree that the commercial scale of wind in particular has rendered this largely redundant so I have binned it (although the remarkable Eigg has been saved for the wind section).
  • Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
    • > I am not aware of any active schemes. I read that "Plans for a subsea renewable energy transmission cable between Scotland and Norway have been put on hold by the government in Oslo." No doubt in the merry land of Brexit all kinds of new collaboration will emerge, although I can't see the UK supporting such a scheme myself.
  • Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
    • >Attempted.
  • Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
    • > I don't think so. The 'local vs national concerns' issue is a function of geography and an urban vs rural issue rather than party political as such - but see below.
  • The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
    • >I fear you may never have been to the Hebrides. The whole point of this is that the greatest sources of energy are in places that are challenging to live in from climate and marine perspectives. Nonetheless I have relegated Murray's comments to a note.
  • I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
    • >I am a bit reluctant to draw the keyboard warriors into the article but I have added a short political parties section.
  • The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/elr.2016.0374?journalCode=elr. It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
    • >Included in the above.
  • If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
    • >Included in the above.
  • How many see-also's are needed?
    • >I removed a few that are in the templates at the bottom of the page.
  • The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • >I take the point - this is probably because recent sources tend to replace coverage of the strategic initiative with comments about the short term tactics as well as being a function of the change from 'potential' to 'installed capacity'. The image has been moved and there are various text changes.
Chipmunkdavis wrote
Drive-by comments
  • The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • >No kidding - hopefully now fixed.
  • What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
    • >Removed.
Additional from B. Mac.

There are a few references from books that don't have pages identified. In two cases I think I know where the volumes are, in at least one (Emma Wood) I don't. Arguably the Monbiot ref in the lead is acceptable as this is the topic of the entire book. I hope to ferret out what I have later today - although it may be next year.... Ben MacDui 12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1 wrote
Good to see this important subject being updated. Some suggestions:
  • Apparently bold is not mandatory for the subject. First sentence needs to be punchier. Maybe something like: "Renewable energy in Scotland is mainly offshore wind power?" (if that is true)
    • > It isn’t true. See Summary of Scotland's resource potential
I agree. The word issue can be a bit negative. Two alternatives:
  • Renewable energy in Scotland reached x% of total energy consumption in year X. This also helps shift the focus away from electricity.
  • The EU sentence is also more catchy: Renewable energy plays an important and growing role in the energy system of Scotland.
  • Lead could emphasize that we are talking about energy not just electricity, and say what proportion of energy is renewable now compared to 2030 target mentioned. Maybe possible to have graph in body showing all energy sources so we can see how renewables compare oil, gas etc
    • > Actually, this is fascinating. When the article first appeared one drive-by commentator wondered whether the topic was worth bothering with at all, so commencing the article with a statement that “this is important” rather than a string of statistics seem(ed)s to me to be far more apposite. Having said I see that it has been changed already and I am not going to grumble if you prefer it that way – although it is also a hostage to changing data and I presume enthusiasts for this approach will be kind enough to provide updates in future.
  • Add a section on "energy storage" and flexible generation - especially longer term e.g. windless weeks
    • >There is a ‘Grid management section’. There is no question at all that battery technology is going to be a major focus in coming years but at present it’s not really a major issue.
      • >>Ah OK but at the moment that section does not seem to give an overview. For example I understand that for the UK as a whole at the moment the flexibility is mostly provided by natural gas - for example gas-fired power stations ramp up when there is very little wind. But I don't know for Scotland whether the current flexibility is provided in the same way or some other way - for example energy import and export with England. Perhaps it is somewhere in the article and I missed it. Also for the UK as a whole I understand a lot of energy is stored in the natural gas pipelines at the moment - so if that is also true of Scotland it could be mentioned together with how that amount of storage (likely too much for batteries) might be done in future. I see you have info about pumped storage in the hydro section but it seems that will not be enough? Or is that out of date? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention demand management e.g. electric car charge timing
    • > I am not aware of anything specific to Scotland that (as yet) is especially noteworthy but I added a tidbit about Sunamp (but note that this is about renewable energy use rather than production – as this becomes mainstreamed it may become necessary to split these topics out – see also below re transport links to islands.)
      • >>Ah I had never heard of those "heat storage batteries". If that is the same as thermal battery perhaps that article could be linked
  • More about using renewable energy to heat homes
    • > I removed this at the suggestion of Femke Nijsse.
      • >> Femkemilene The UKCCC says (in the doc linked below) the Scottish govt should "Set out a coherent strategy for the future of low-carbon heat and energy efficiency in Scotland's homes and other buildings." Although the strategy will obviously cover more than renewable energy I think the arguments (for example for and against heat pumps) should be discussed more here. Because the article title is "Renewable energy in Scotland" not limited to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" but also it should cover the use of renewable energy a bit more don't you think? Alternatively it could be renamed to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" which matches the short description. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss how much electricity (and maybe hydrogen) links to rest of UK will help UK as a whole achieve net zero
    • >Mentioned in the “realisation section, para starting: “In 2018, Scotland exported over 28% of electricity generation…”. I added “to the rUK” just to make it clear. Hydrogen is (as yet) irrelevant at this scale.
  • Remove "peak oil" as not now relevant
    • >I read at Peak oil that current estimates of the date of peak oil “range from 2019 to the 2040s” so I don’t see how the idea can be considered not now relevant. It was and is a major driving force of public policy.
  • A bit more on transport links to and between islands - electric planes?
    • >There are no passenger, commercial or other links in Scotland using electric planes (although there has been some coverage of amusing ideas to increase carbon emissions by attracting people to go to Orkney to then experience the world's shortest scheduled flight using an electric flying machine.) Caledonian MacBrayne have two or three diesel powered ferries supplemented with lithium-ion batteries. This is mentioned at Sustainable development in Scotland and in my view the topic is more relevant to that article.
  • Add "current annual energy" column to summary table
    • >Don’t understand.
      • >>I was thinking the actual energy generated by each tech in a particular year. But on second thoughts perhaps that would be too much work to keep up to date in future. And I have now read the note beneath the table and I see that the potential energy is actually a quick estimate of what I was asking for.
  • Is offshore wind potential really only 25GW? floating platforms included?
    • > The numbers in the article are very similar to those used here. As an aside, it’s fascinating to see how so much of the recent information is monetised – i.e. phrased as ‘worth £x billion’ or ‘y 000 jobs’ rather than expressed in potential energy. It’s a long way from Twidell’s conference in 1981.
  • Condense bioenergy section and expand offshore wind section
    • >Expand in what way? Listing yet more wind farms already in the main article would not increase interest or readability.
  • Brief mention of politics and economics of closing down (or converting to CCS/blue hydrogen) natural gas electricity and heating
    • > CCS: the political history is of Holyrood vs Westminster brickbat chucking but the end result is (so far) no action. The economics are essentially a UK matter. See ‘Carbon sequestration; section for the current situation.
    • > I added a sentence about the recent policy announcement – although we have been waiting on the ‘hydrogen economy’ since the 1980s and I am not holding my breath.


Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • >Replies by your humble servant, Ben MacDui 10:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More from Femke
  • on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
  • 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
  • It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
  • Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
  • Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
  • 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
  • The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
  • The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am now back at work - will reply at the weekend. Ben MacDui 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies
  • on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
    • >>I removed this dated statement. Westray's rather fun biodiesel project seems to have ended a few years ago - at least I can't see anything obvious beyond about 2012 so I put it in the past tense.
  • 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
    • >>I amended the wording.
  • It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
  • Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
    • >>SEPA now have a standard in place. Amended.
  • Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
    • >>They are perfectly good words - what would the reasons be to change them?
  • 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
    • >> Surpringly difficult to find out actually. It seems to have been mothballed in 2011 and then there was a proposal to revieve it 2017 and now Brockwell have permission to re-build some kind of waste to energy plant either nearby or on the same site. I've removed it.
  • The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
    • >>Biocapacity is used in ecological footprint studies and although these much more complex analyses have received much less attention than the simpler and more immediately concerning carbon footprint studies that does not make them less important. See for example the front page of one of the quoted sources or Chambers (2004) where the word is repeated frequently or indeed Ecological footprint. I have added a better link direct to Biocapacity. Unless someone has done a revised study with different methodology the outcomes are unlikely to have changed much.
  • The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.
    • >> Removed inexpensive.
  • it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power.
    • >>I hope you'll forgive me if I say that yes it is difficult - and it's also a little confusing to be asked to remove a section that included remarks about '"small-scale 'wind2heat' projects", "air source heat pumps" and waste heat and then be asked to say more about "renewable energy in heat". Tbh I am not at all sure what is being asked for. For example, it is perfectly true that electric cars are going mainstream whereas hydrogen is still essentially experimental. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, other than garages retailing e-vehicles I don't know of a specifically Scottish angle here, whereas there very much is in the context of hydrogen, even it still remains unclear how, when and if it can be mainstreamed. Furthemore, not all e-vehicles are powered by renewable sources, depending on who the energy supplier is. I wonder if any statistics about this exist. Maybe I could use something from here. I'll need to think about this.
I trust your judgement :).
    • >>Thanks - I have added a new para about the relationship of demand management and EVs.

Ben MacDui 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, but my stress levels have been a bit too high recently, so I'm working towards a one or two month wiki break, and won't be reviewing this article further. Loads of progress made so far, and I'm sure other people can help bring this article back to FA status. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • >>Understood and hope you recover soon. Ben MacDui 11:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: as Femke is not planning to return can I ask you (and anyone else above) to say whether or not you have any further concerns? Ben MacDui 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't have the energy to look at this any more. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments

I don't think I have the same grasp of the issue as some here, but I can provide some comment further comments.

  • The lead feels disjointed, without a clear order or structure. I think some shuffling may solve the issue, but perhaps you may have more ideas on how to summarise the article since you have been back into it.
  • Before having a section on "Realisation of the potential", it might be good to have a section on the potential. There is a bit of this in the first paragraph, and there is the table at the bottom which appears to have some sources that could also be added. There is space for a bit more explanation on where the potential for the various forms of energy production comes from.
  • Such a Potential section could also introduce a summary of Scotland's energy and electricity mixes at whatever the best baseline is (2006 from the article?). That provides good context to see the shifts within the mix. Perhaps an explanation on how the grid functions (reach of the National Grid, other smaller grids in Scotland, interconnectors within the grid, import/export of electricity).
  • Comparisons within the EU should be past tense (not just because of Brexit, the EU's expansion may also have altered percentages).
  • Placing the Realisation section in chronological order makes sense, and is mostly done here, but it does swing back and forth a bit. Relating I think to comments above about datedness, the "20 GW of renewable energy projects in the pipeline" part comes from a 2012 source. It does feel like there is more missing, for example the UK has legislated for net-zero emissions, surely there is some Scottish component to this and/or complementary or similar plans by the Scottish government? A later source says Scot Gov has a plan for "100% of electricity and 11% of all heat in Scotland being generated through renewable energy sources by 2020", for example, although this too is out of date now.
  • The bar graphs at the bottom of the article could be used to illustrate the Realisation section.
  • The first paragraph of Hydropower seems dated and some parts are unsourced.
  • The scottishrenewables url in the second paragraph is out of date. It also links to its own sources, which may be preferable. Much of the rest of the paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced, unless it's in the book? The book source needs page numbers.
  • The remaining hydro capacity source is from 2010, is this up to date? What happened to Knoydart and Kingussie?
  • Perhaps make pumped storage its own paragraph?
  • In general throughout the article there is an overuse of "in Scotland", which should be understandable from context.
  • The parts sourced to "Scottish wind power output breaks 100% output milestone" appear to be a straight up copy paste.
  • The explanation of what Tidal Power is seems mostly unsourced.
  • Regarding the sectoral section order, I can't see a pattern. Might it be best to go from the highest producer of power (wind) to the lowest?
  • It seems highly undue that almost half of the Solar energy section is devoted to a road energy system that exists in a car park.

I've read the rest of the article but don't have any specific points right now. The general points touched upon with the specific examples above could probably be applied to other areas of the article. I come away with a similar impression to above of a bit of datedness and some areas where the general information lack sources. That said, your comments above about how difficult it is to keep this article up to date feel quite justified, and I also come away with the impression of a breadth of scope supported through specific detailed examples. CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for this. I am pretty real-world busy right now - I will respond asap. Ben MacDui 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am about half way through the above now but Monday looms again. With any luck I'll have managed most of it during the coming week. Ben MacDui 16:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to More comments from Chipmunkdavis

@Chipmunkdavis:

  • The lead feels disjointed, without a clear order or structure. I think some shuffling may solve the issue, but perhaps you may have more ideas on how to summarise the article since you have been back into it.
    • >I have tweaked it a bit and the 'realisation' section. (It's getting hard to see the wood for the trees now and if I were planning to submit this to FAC I'd probably let it sit for a few weeks and then come back.)
  • Before having a section on "Realisation of the potential", it might be good to have a section on the potential. There is a bit of this in the first paragraph, and there is the table at the bottom which appears to have some sources that could also be added. There is space for a bit more explanation on where the potential for the various forms of energy production comes from.
    • >I moved the table up - which I thought would be easy but fixing the notes etc took about 30 minutes!
  • Such a Potential section could also introduce a summary of Scotland's energy and electricity mixes at whatever the best baseline is (2006 from the article?). That provides good context to see the shifts within the mix. Perhaps an explanation on how the grid functions (reach of the National Grid, other smaller grids in Scotland, interconnectors within the grid, import/export of electricity).
    • > There is an 'Electricity generated by source' graph below. Creating a whole new article about the main grid in Scotland is beyond my resources I'm afraid. We do have National Grid (Great Britain).
  • Comparisons within the EU should be past tense (not just because of Brexit, the EU's expansion may also have altered percentages).
    • >Easy to get stats for renewables and the quoted figures are equivalent to the precentages for the whole of Europe. Harder to get information about fossil fuels. theglobaleconomy.com thinks UK reserves of oil are 2.2 billion barrels but the BBC has an article suggesting its 20 billion. A fair few sources discuss the topic in terms of monetary value which is not very helpful. I made this less specific.
  • Placing the Realisation section in chronological order makes sense, and is mostly done here, but it does swing back and forth a bit. Relating I think to comments above about datedness, the "20 GW of renewable energy projects in the pipeline" part comes from a 2012 source.
    • >Fixed.
  • It does feel like there is more missing, for example the UK has legislated for net-zero emissions, surely there is some Scottish component to this and/or complementary or similar plans by the Scottish government? A later source says Scot Gov has a plan for "100% of electricity and 11% of all heat in Scotland being generated through renewable energy sources by 2020", for example, although this too is out of date now.
    • >The article stated "The Scottish Government's energy plan calls for 100% of electricity consumption to be generated through renewable sources by 2020, and 50% of total energy consumption (including transportation) by 2030" and there is a whole section about promoting renewables and the political landscape. I have tweaked these entries a bit.
  • The bar graphs at the bottom of the article could be used to illustrate the Realisation section.
    • >Good idea - done.
  • The first paragraph of Hydropower seems dated and some parts are unsourced.
    • >It's a figure for potential so it won't change much - of the curent installed capacity Scotland has 1.653/1.873 GW which is 88.2%. Power from the Glens/Neart nan Gleann source added.
  • The scottishrenewables url in the second paragraph is out of date. It also links to its own sources, which may be preferable.
    • >The link was Ok but I have tweaked the ref and the stat.
  • Much of the rest of the paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced, unless it's in the book? The book source needs page numbers.
    • >Power from the Glens sources added. I don't have access to the book anymore. The book source is now simply to confirm that Wood is indeed "the author of a study of these pioneers".
  • The remaining hydro capacity source is from 2010, is this up to date?
    • > If there has been a more recent evaluation I have not seen it.
  • What happened to Knoydart and Kingussie?
    • > Kingussie was built circa 2011. Knoydart is quite an old system and is still with us.
  • Perhaps make pumped storage its own paragraph?
    • >Done
  • In general throughout the article there is an overuse of "in Scotland", which should be understandable from context.
    • >Done
  • The parts sourced to "Scottish wind power output breaks 100% output milestone" appear to be a straight up copy paste.
    • >Well spotted and fixed.
  • The explanation of what Tidal Power is seems mostly unsourced.
    • >Sources added. (I wonder if it is possible that 13 years ago, when the article was promoted that we were more inclined to view unsourced statements of the obvious in a sympathetic light.)
  • Regarding the sectoral section order, I can't see a pattern. Might it be best to go from the highest producer of power (wind) to the lowest?
    • >The order is - oldest established, largest of more recent schmes, then the two systems that have very signficnat potential then the systems with least potential. To put it another way, it's past, present, future plus smaller scale. Given that hydro pre-dates the other technologies by several decades it makes sense to me that it is first.
  • It seems highly undue that almost half of the Solar energy section is devoted to a road energy system that exists in a car park.
    • >I have removed it. I fear the company are no longer in that rather speculative business. Ben MacDui 13:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry for this late response. To clarify my point on the grid, I'm not suggesting a whole article, but just perhaps a single setence in the Potential section, something like "Most electricity in Scotland is carried through the National Grid, with Scotland's renewable mix thus affecting the electricity production of Great Britain as a whole" or similar. This would both put the energy usage in context (Scottish wind energy could power something elsewhere easily) and add context to smaller mentions of various grids and of sending electricity to the rest of the UK that are already included throughout the rest of the article.
I've copied some text from the lead into the body. The first sentence mentions a report not mentioned in the body, but a separate 2005 report is mentioned, and the topic is similar. One point remaining is that the lead says "Renewables produced 21% of Scotland's energy in 2018", while the body uses a different source and says 21% was in 2019.
Other than that, thanks again for answering and/or addressing my comments, and well done on building and maintaining the only Renewable energy in X article to reach GA/FA. CMD (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will check the above out asap - hopefully this weekend. Ben MacDui 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems weird to start with "Realisation of the potential" without first having a section explaining what the potential is to start with. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • >The first para refers to the potential and table illustrating this is at the start of the section.Ben MacDui 11:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

further comments Femke

Amazing work so far. Some additional comments about the lead:

  • issue is, among other things, synonymous for problem, and feels too negative for me so prominently in the lead.
  • come to the fore is probably too difficult for the target audience.
  • Second sentence second paragraph has over citation. Surely, three citations are enough?
  • Merge second and third paragraph?
  • are also encouraging the use of various biofuels not sure why this is highlighted here.
  • Although the finances of many projects remain either speculative or dependent on market incentives, it is probable that there has been a significant, and in all likelihood long-term change, in the underpinning economics -> definitely too negative considering current conditions.
  • There is also an emerging political debate -> remove the word emerging, this debate is now old. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

replies to further comments by Femke

@Femkemilene: Welcome back to the fray.

  • issue is, among other things, synonymous for problem, and feels too negative for me so prominently in the lead.
    • > I am not sure I agree but I have changed this to 'topic'.
  • come to the fore is probably too difficult for the target audience.
    • > I am hoping our target audience are slightly smarter and better read than you seem to think! If you have a more inclusive phrase by all means tweak this.
  • Second sentence second paragraph has over citation. Surely, three citations are enough?
    • >Fixed.
  • Merge second and third paragraph?
    • >Done.
  • are also encouraging the use of various biofuels not sure why this is highlighted here.
    • > When I was younger (so much younger than today) I was taught that one had to include a mention of every section in the article in the lead and this may be a rather clumsy way of doing this. If you can suggest an alternative I'd be grateful.
I've put it together with other sources in decreasing order of capacity. Does that work? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works, although I tweaked the order per the table. Ben MacDui 13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the finances of many projects remain either speculative or dependent on market incentives, it is probable that there has been a significant, and in all likelihood long-term change, in the underpinning economics -> definitely too negative considering current conditions.
    • > I understand what you mean, although as it is only a matter of days since the 45th President of the US stood down and here in dear old Brittannia the UK government is opening coal mines I am not at all sure the global picture is especially rosy. Nonetheless I have tweaked this and added a reference - Martin Valenti is generally good for a pep talk.
Even the IEA (which has been publishing ridiculously pessimistic price predictions) is quite rosy about economics of power technologies. Considering the fact heat is not as well-developed as power, I think the current sentence works. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Ben MacDui 13:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an emerging political debate -> remove the word emerging, this debate is now old.
    • > Removed. 'Old' is somewhat contingent of course. For a younger person 2015 is 'old', for an older person it may be a seemingly newer and perhaps still emerging debate if one can remember a time when such debate was confined to a few enthusiasts. Ben MacDui 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC -- It might be nice to have this as a TFA during COP26, which may require some additional finetuning/updating closer to the date. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ben MacDui 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, Ben MacDui does not disappoint! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 13 February 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.

Removed edit

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) 7:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [8].

Kitsune edit

Notified: Shimeru, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Shinto, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Mythology, Dec 2020

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because SG's concerns at the talk page (including verifiability, prose issues) have not been addressed. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC Nothing happening. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Except for the external links, none of SG's concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the complete lack of attention given to anything here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No progress Deltawk (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Not going anywhere. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Except for a trim of the external links, there has been no significant improvement since the review started. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 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) 17:38, 27 February 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.
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) 7:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [9].

Bob McEwen edit

Notified: PedanticallySpeaking, WP Biography, WP United States, WP Ohio, WP U.S. Congress, WP Politics, WP Conservatism, 2020-11-23

Review section edit

Lots of uncited text in what is a BLP, an entire section about namesakes sourced to 2001 sources, the lobbying section looks like it might be out of date, the fact that he's the head of the Council for National Policy, a notable political group, is barely mention, and apparently he plays a significant role in a Southern Baptist Convention group, which maybe should be mentioned. Somewhat out of date, and missing a lot of citations. Hog Farm Talk 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC No substantial edits to prose since the notice was given, no interest on the talk page to fix the issues. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Still no substantial edits. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Still much uncited text, no edits addressing this issue. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist uncited text and comprehensiveness issues. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist inadequate citation. SandyGeorgia 20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No significant improvement since review started. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Still no improvement. Politicsfan4 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 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.
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) 7:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [10].

Panavision edit

Notified: Girolamo Savonarola, WikiProject California, WikiProject Companies, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Media, 2021-01-06

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the concerns I raised on the talk page have not been addressed. These include updating infobox info from 2008, uncited statements (like a direct quote) and formatting concerns after the merge of Panavision 3D into the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - nothing's being done for this. GamerPro64 03:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements tagged since January. DrKay (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - progress is not being made. Hog Farm Talk 17:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - No significant edits since I notified the talk page. My concerns have not been addressed or resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 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.
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) 7:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [11].

Nostradamus edit

Notified: Jim62sch, PL, WP Bio, WP France, WP Astrology, WP Skepticism, WP Med, 2020-12-16

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editors have not edited for several years and that has not been maintained to standard. There has been no response to the 2020-12-16 talk page notification. Other concerns were raised at the previous out-of-process FAR, at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nostradamus/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spot a large amount of uncited text here; there are several unsourced sentences and large paragraphs that rely on a single reference at the end. This article was promoted back when inline citations were not compulsory in FAs and it shows; fails 1. c) at the moment, particularly the bit claims... are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Then, we have references to popular culture in the Works section, the Interpretations section, and then again in the section In popular culture; there's repetition and trivia in the article. There has been a lot of fascination with Nostradamus over the centuries and it is unclear to me if all those claims made by unnamed people that are currently listed in the Popular claims section are even worth mentioning. That run-on sentence starting with With the exception of Roberts... reads like a list of trivia. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, edits since nomination, no improvement (although we did get one of pet peeves about women who are little more than their uterus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - The editing isn't addressing the outstanding major issues. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements and paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Significant issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 00:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No significant improvement since nomination. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 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.
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) 7:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC) [12].

Structural history of the Roman military edit

Notified: PocklingtonDan, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Rome, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is an older FA with a number of issues that need to be adressed. For instance:

  • several uncited sentences;
  • "clarification needed" tags in the text since 2013;
  • Livy, Polybius and Tacitus are primary sources, maybe they should be replaced by secondary sources, ie. modern historians?
  • Is that "Strategy Page" reliable? (ref. 28)
  • the lead is divided in "Phases" but I see no reference to this "division" in the text.
  • citations need work, for instance:
  • Sekunda is not defined;
  • I don't think Boak's The Roman Magistri in the Civil and Military Service of the Empire is ever used in the article;
  • typically when we have 2 authors saying the same thing, we use 2 different references; here, every such case is bundled;
  • Explanatory notes are not referenced;
  • Edward Gibbon seems a bit dated.

Hoping to hear from more knowledgeable editors than myself, I'm not familiar with Roman history. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was painful to skim. Plenty of content not cited at all. Of that which is I am not sure whether I find unsupported referencing to Gibbon or to Livy the most depressing, especially when some of it is simply wrong. The fundamental structure is OK, but it's going to take a lot of work to get it up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The bones of the article aren't terrible, but the number of uncited pieces of text is alarming, and the "phase" system mentioned only within the lede is either poorly worded (to sound like these steps were planned instead of organic responses to crises) or straight up OR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ref system seems very outdated, and is overall pretty frustrating to work with. Will see about moving everything over to Harvard refs, much more servicable for an article this size. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as self-contradictory, needing citation, and needing clarification. DrKay (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iazyges: I see you've been putting some work into this - do you feel you're able to address the issues that have been raised, or do you concur that delisting is appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I'd like to see this remain FA but don't have the time to fix the pretty severe issues this article has within a reasonable time frame; I'd suggest delisting for now and I'll try to take it back up to featured article when I have the time to. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Serious issues that are best addressed outside of FAR. Once they are fixed, another FAC can be made. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 22 February 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.
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) 0:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC) [13].

Enta da Stage edit

Notified: PDTantisocial, Holiday56, Isento, Forbearance, WP Albums, WP Hip hop, 2020-11-23

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion does not meet the modern standards. In particular, we have uncited text, a user-generated source (genius), a blog (Oh Word), and a doubtful-looking source titled the-breaks.com. Additionally, the talk page notice includes examples of failed verification of text-source integrity. Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue I had with this article was sourcing. There are several unsourced sentences and some references failed verification; refs 2 and 3 in the background section do not fully cover what is said there, for instance. The only reference in the single chart positions' also does not relate to what's in our table. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements, including exceptional claim 'prominent'. Doubts raised over quality of sources. DrKay (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, none of the problems have been addressed at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Nothing of note really happening here. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 17 February 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) 20:44, 20 February 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.
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC) [14].

Adore (album) edit

Notified: Brandt Luke Zorn, WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Alternative music, 01-03-2021

Review section edit

Hey all. This article was promoted to Fa back in 2007, and it has depreciated a lot over time. I raised concerns on its talk page earlier this month and no one gave any input. While I took care of a few issues before I raised concerns, the article still has a lot of issues that I raised there. – zmbro (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro I am not seeing that the notifications (as listed) were done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Done. Very sorry about that! – zmbro (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that several of these sources are reliable, including Addicted to Noise, Smashing Pumpkings Fan Collaborative, Smashingpumpkinsnexus.com. There's also rather heavy use of primary source material from band members Corgan and Aronoff. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also noted in ref 2 (which isn't an actual ref) just states "The primary source on the recording climate is a three-part blog written by Billy Corgan in 2005, all three of which are referenced extensively in the body of this article." I don't believe FAs should be self-referential. – zmbro (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree on that. It's going to be fixable, as we appear to have the actual Corgan refs to compare, but how much should we really rely on primary source Corgan? There's a lot of work needed here, and it's too far out of my wheelhouse to do this personally. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. Before I made comments on its talk page I fixed a few things on my own, including moving refs out of the infobox and modernizing the charts section (before). While I'm a fan of 90s-Pumpkins, I don't have much access to anything non-website related, so I can't be of much assistance in that department. – zmbro (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, zero improvement (one bot edit) since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Issues identified above, and no significant improvements. Hog Farm Talk 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no significant work since 7 January. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no work on improvement whatsoever. I would also like to point out that the "personnel" section is entirely unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist would need considerable improvements to meet the criteria (t · c) buidhe 09:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no substantive improvements have been made to correct the issues during the course of this FAR. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 15 February 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.
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) 2:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [15].

Management of multiple sclerosis edit

Notified: Garrondo, Juansempere, Fvasconcellos, WP Medicine, WP Pharm, WP Disability, WP Neuroscience, talk page notification 2020-11-10

Review section edit

This 2007 promotion was nominated by an editor who stopped editing seven years ago; the article has not been maintained to FA standards (nor to WP:MEDDATE standard). There has been no response to concerns I raised on talk two months ago. Concerns include datedness in medical content, copyedit needs, citation overkill, MOS and article organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, zero engagement, and I have been raising concerns about non-compliance with medical FAs at WT:MED for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - agree with Sandy, article needs significant reorganization and work with citations, and there has been no engagement at all. Deltawk (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - needs a lot of work, and no engagement. Deltawk (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - As above, it doesn't meet our standards for medical FAs. Hog Farm Talk 16:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for vagueness/ambiguity, weasel-words and needing update. DrKay (talk) 22:04, 6 February 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) 22:03, 13 February 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.
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) 2:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [16].

Scottish Parliament edit

Notified: Globaltraveller, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Edinburgh, 31 December

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised several issues on the talk page more than 2 weeks ago, which have yet to be addressed. There are 12 citation needed tags; also, the article heavily cites official sources while neglecting scholarship, as I noted on talk. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - A dead give away that there is a major lack of non-official commentary is the statement "Various academics have written on how the Scottish Parliament can be improved as a governing institution" in the criticism section. We are told this, but not what those scholars think should be done. This article seems overfocused on the offical aspects of it, without any secondary commentary. If we are told the official perspective, but not what unaffiliated scholars and RS think about the setup, that is a neutrality issue, as we're only getting one side of the story. Hog Farm Talk 16:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe there was some work on this article on 17 January-- update needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SandyGeorgia Yes, there was a reduction in cn tags [17] by adding citations and removing unsourced content, but on the other hand we are not any further along in including non-official perspectives, as noted by Hog Farm above. (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 29 January 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.
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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC) [18].

Thrasybulus edit

Notified: Robth, WP MILHIST, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Biography, WP Greece, 2020-12-24

Review section edit

Well, this early 2006 promotion does not meet the current standards when it comes to sourcing. I see three main issues here. First, there's some uncited text, including a significant paragraph assessing the figure and comparing him to Churchill. Second, the first paragraph of the personal life and early career section appears to almost certainly be WP:OR based on passing details mentioned in ancient sources. Lastly, this article relies very heavy on ancient sources. I have nothing against sparing use of primary sources in FAs, but we shouldn't have entire paragraphs in FAs cited solely to authors who died centuries before the time of Christ. This just doesn't muster the bar of current FA sourcing expectations. Primary creator has not edited since 2011, so I'm afraid we won't be able to get any help from that angle. Pinging @T8612: as they asked to be informed when this went to far. Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Given the vast secondary literature on the Peloponnesian War, there should be no need to cite Thucydides. There's also a large literature on Thucydides, which notes that he needs to be interpreted with caution at times. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: There is also no reason not to quote or cite what Thucydides says, since it is useful to have the chapters and verses where Thrasybulus is mentioned (or other salient events described) noted in the article, and because whatever the fickle opinions of historians, the words of Thucydides are in effect immutable, notable in themselves, and, despite the volumniousness of the secondary literature based mostly on them, the best evidence for the detail of the politics of the Peloponnesian War. Ancient historians are not to be used for unsupported statements of fact, but references to them, or quotations from them, must not be purged from articles just because they are old and inherently prejudiced and unreliable. They should be cited but cited with secondary sources, not in lieu of them. GPinkerton (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, it's a primary source. We don't use primary sources where we can avoid doing so per WP:PRIMARY. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY doesn't say not to use primary sources. It says "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". The key point is the interpretation of primary sources. T8612 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, the only non-bot edit since nomination is to change the URL for a book source. This isn't being actively improved. Hog Farm Talk 05:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in teh review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - The sourcing leaves quite a bit to be desired. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - A featured article cannot rely almost entirely on primary sources. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Relies way too much on primary sources. T8612 (talk) 16:24, 4 February 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.
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) 1:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC) [19].

Yagan edit

Notified: Hesperain, WP Bio, WP Australia, talk page notice 2020-12-04

Review section edit

I raised concerns about this 2006 FA over a month ago on talk, and there has been no reaction. See talk page notice 2020-12-04 Concerns are lead, comprehensiveness, balance, and some MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist has significant POV issues that will require extensive cleanup and past experience shows that even minor changes to the article will only occur with significant discussion in to finite details due to the nature of the subject including the fact that a lot of the sourcing itself comes from colonial bias sources and more recent sourcing published during the History Wars era where. The article also presents Yagan's and Nyungar culture as part of a monocultural group of Aboriginals Australians rather than taking into account that Nyungar and Whadjuk Nyungar people had their own laws, culture, language, and customs which they shared with other Nyungar states comprising the southwest of what is now Western Australia. Gnangarra 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gnangarra see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Take the section lobbying for repatriation it says " Tribal elders entrusted the Aboriginal leader Ken Colbung with the search." there are no tribal elders. Nyungar culture refers to Elders as people of experience and wisdom the use of tribe is a European anthropological construct. The page erroneously refers to tribe, tribes, or tribal on 19 separate occasions. Gnangarra 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC since FAR listing, minor copyedits only, significant issues unaddressed. [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist would need significant work to bring the article to meet the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues unaddressed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as per what others have mentioned. Deltawk (talk) 02:12, 3 February 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) 21:05, 6 February 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.
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) 1:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC) [21].

Chew Valley Lake edit

Notified: Rodw, WP Somerset, WP Lakes, WP England, WP UK geography, 2020-11-23

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion doesn't meet the current standards. There's large amounts of uncited text throughout, and some of the material is potentially outdated, such as the bit starting with "During 2005–2006 Bristol Water started restoring two artificial islands." in the birdwatching section. There's also a self-published source cited (Hucker), and the sailing section is entirely about a single organization and that material is only cited to that organization's website, which raises some due weight concerns given the level of detail given. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AS the original primary author of this article I agree that it no longer meets current standards.— Rod talk 08:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - doesn't seem to have garnered any interest. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - no progress, the original author is responsive but mentioned they are unavailable to help update the article. Deltawk (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Not particularly close to standards. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Article needs lots of work. Deltawk (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist needs improvement to meet the current standards. (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 29 January 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) 21:06, 6 February 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.
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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC) [22].

The Philadelphia Inquirer edit

Notified: Medvedenko, WP Brands, WP Journalism, WP Newspapers, WP Pennyslvania,WP Philadelphia, talk page notification 2020-11-25

Review section edit

This is a 2006 FA whose main editor has been gone from Wikipedia for eight years; it has not been maintained to standards. A summary of issues including datedness, sourcing, comprehensiveness and MOS was posted on talk over a month ago, with no response. If anyone engages to improve the article, I can expand the list of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, for an article promoted in 2006, this isn't in bad shape, but that's a low bar. I fixed the citation needed tags and replaced the dead search link for the Pulitzers section with one that works. There's still a bunch of work to be done, and I don't personally think I'll have the capacity, but I really hope someone comes in and saves this. Newspapers of record for major cities are important topics and we should prioritize keeping them up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, with the exception of Sdkb's edits, and some bare URLs filled in, no other edits, and issues mostly unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sdkb do you have any further thoughts? In spite of your improvements, I remain concerned that overall the article needs updating and is no longer comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No further thoughts at the moment. I continue to feel that this is an important FA worth saving, rather than just delisting after a perfunctory wait. Is there anywhere we could post likely to actually draw in editors to work on it? I can help out if there's a group effort, but I don't have the capacity to go through this entire page by myself. As I said above, it's really not in that bad shape compared to most other FAs from 2006, but any page promoted from that era is going to need some work to get it to 2021 FA standards. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from notifications above, we typically cast a wide net with FAR notifications, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Medvedenko hasn't edited since 2012, and none of those WikiProjects are more than marginally active. Is there any task force that seeks to save high-priority FAs undergoing FARCs? If not, we might as well just automatically delist every FA that hasn't been reviewed since 2010. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We find that about 20% of those listed here are restored to status, and feel like that's worth the effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a no, and strongly suggest that such a task force be created. I highly doubt that the 20% of pages that survive tend to represent the most visible or vital FAs. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Earth is pretty vital, and a recent save at FAR. Ditto for climate change.  ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't seen the Earth FAR—that does give me a little bit of hope that FA people are capable of working on something other than hurricanes, soldiers, and rare coins. I'd characterize it as an exception to the rule, though. And climate change was most certainly an exception—it probably should've been structured as a peer review, since it was nominated as a checkup rather than since the nominator observed any problems. The point remains that the vast majority of FAs have almost no effort put into maintaining them to standards, and that FARC fails to offer a way to gather editors to save articles like this one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues of comprehensiveness and datedness outstanding. The article was improved at FAR, but not enough to bring it to FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Considering only the lead: in the first paragraph, "largest newspaper" and "newspaper of record" are both sourced to the newspaper's owners or its employees: primary source inline for exceptional claims with potential conflict of interest. The second paragraph includes claims apparently unsupported by sources: "lacking experienced staff" and "most prominent" [neither of which is sourced in the article body] and a claim apparently unsupported in the article body by secondary sources: "trailed its chief competitor". The third paragraph is too short, disconnected and has uncertain relevance and notability. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 2 February 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 10 February 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.
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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC) [23].

Acid2 edit

Notified: Remember the dot, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Computing, 2020-11-09

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains uncited sections, source formatting issues, too many primary sources, and hasn't been updated with retrospective commentary, as noted by RetiredDuke in November. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • What article? Nearly the whole damn thing is a bunch of bullet lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ETA: Here's a more detailed look.
  1. In just a passing glance, I was able to find at least four maintenance tags to slap on the thing. Three are entire sections that consist entirely of lists, and one is an extremely large image gallery of dubious relevance.
  2. There is also a lot of "this is a list", "see the list below", "the following is a list" which does not follow MOS:LEADFORALIST.
  3. Source 1, "Margin Collapse Issue", is an incomplete citation to another wiki.
  4. There are an ungodly amount of primary sources or press releases. 2, 4-12, 15-17, 19, 22-24, 40, 42-46, and more.
  5. Most of the sources used in the article are just individual browsers' websites reporting data about said browser which has nothing to do with Acid2 (things like the release date of said browser). This seems to make parts of the article veer into WP:OFFTOPIC territory.
  6. Many sources, like "TheCounter.com" (#30) and "Market Share" (#41), seem horrendously out of date. In fact, the latter has been domain-squatted by a restaurant.

This is seriously the worst condition I've seen an FA in since the FAR for ROT13. It is so utterly unsalvageable that someone who knows the subject better than I may need to use some WP:TNT. Pinging @Nikkimaria: @Casliber:, @DrKay: - using the ROT13 FAR as precedent, can we invoke WP:IAR here and speedy-delist this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's go for an accelerated FAR, assuming the nominator does not engage - I see they last edited a couple of weeks ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support accelerated Move to FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated FARC. Big mess. That table of compliant applications is a complete wreck, another section is just a gallery, outdated, references look out of date. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my concerns above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist - This is a complete and thorough mess. Most of the articles is lists and tables, some of which goes into WP:UNDUE territory, it's not updated, and a bunch of the sources fail high-quality RS by a mile. We're seriously using "Tim's Blog" and a Mozilla bug tracking ticket as sources in a FA? Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the overview of what Acid2 tests less list-like. The great Jay (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to convert all the list-like sections. The great Jay (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Issues with excessive lists have largely been addressed. But this still needs essentially a whole rewrite. The timeline of passing applications may need scrapped. Almost the entire compliant applications section is a single, excessively long sentence. Non-compliant applications only discusses a single application. Multiple dubious sources. A lack of retrospective commentary. Still a long way off. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Im working on finding secondary sources about Acid2. The great Jay (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia Jay. Saving a FA article that is this far gone is extremely difficult, especially if you still have to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia seeks in our best work. For instance, you've removed the lists, but have not put in appropriate prose with a good paragraph structure (smaller paragraphs) and punctuation. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried, but sadly, I couldn't find any secondary sources. The great Jay (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist substantially below standards. Deltawk (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist No substantial progress, new mistakes introduced with punctuation. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:30, 28 February 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. (given the number of current removal candidates we have, and impressions of the above I have delisted (relatively) speedily so efforts can be focussed elsewhere) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 28 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/February_2021&oldid=1009510269"