Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2022

< 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) 2:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC) [1].

Uncle Tom's Cabin edit

Notified: SouthernNights, Rjensen, Jmabel, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject United States, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Women's history, WikiProject Women writers, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues RetiredDuke brought up in February have not been addressed. The biggest issue for me is the significant uncited text in the article. (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. As the article's original author, I agree the article needs a cleanup with more citations added. I'm willing to do that. However, the next few weeks are really packed for me. Any way we could hold off on this two-week process until after the holidays? Or alternately, any way some other editors could help out? I essentially haven't edited the article in nearly 10 years and will need some time to sort out issues and fix them. As a side note, this has been listed as one of the most vital literary articles on Wikipedia and it would be a shame to have it removed from FA status without an attempt to address these concerns.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree completely it would be better to improve the article to FA status. @WP:FAR coordinators: would it be possible to put this FAR on hold until January as requested above? (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks. I'll have time to work on this after December 21 or so. I can likely sort out these issues with a week of research and editing. And as a final note, the article was originally promoted to FA status thanks to the amazing feedback of Adrianne Wadewitz, one of the best literary editors Wikipedia has ever seen. Since Adrianne sadly passed away far too young, I'd like to work to keep this article at FA status in honor of her original feedback and help on it.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to leave here on hold till then - we've left others open for 6+ months before. and if anyone else wants to chip in before then....bonus.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No edits, reinstated FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a personal issue which prevented me from finishing my work in a timely manner. That said, I've done a ton of research and will try to integrate that into the FAR process. My apologies for not getting this done when I said I would. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now cleaned up and reworked the article per the issues originally raised (summarized here on the article's talk page). This included editing the entire article, updating and adding new sources, deleting original research, and much more. Let me know what people think. I'd originally done the research for all this back in December but then didn't have the time to make the edits. I'm sure there's more work needed on this article b/c it's so large and complex, so if people see something share it here. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Although there has been a lot of improvement thanks to SouthernNights edits, there is still considerable uncited content that will need to get referenced or removed. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, @RetiredDuke: re original list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Publlications section has a lot of stubby paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've inserted all of the requested citations in the article (or, if the unsourced statement couldn't be supported with a reliable citation, removed the statement). I've also gone through and re-edited the article to smooth out and clean up more of the prose.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other changes needed to keep the article at featured status? --SouthernNights (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing issues still present:

  • Citing 19th century sources such as "J. E. Dunn (August 31, 1896). "About Uncle Tom's Cabin: A Louisianian Says Meredith Calhoun Was Not a Model for Legree". The Washington Post." Not only do such sources not meet the high-quality sourcing requirement, a recent scholarly source could tell you what the current view is on various theories.
  • There are other questionable sources cited such as BookRags.com
  • Page numbers needed for some books cited
  • The references section needs cleanup and a consistent citation style, but the substantive sourcing issues should be resolved first. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that dated citation and added citations to all the requested places. As for the references using a consistent citation style, is there a bot we can use for that, or is there someone with expertise in this area who can help?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are still other 19th century sources cited:
  • "Parton, James (October 1867). "International Copyright". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 6, 2009."
  • "Old Uncle Tom". Weekly Arizona Miner (Prescott, Arizona). August 2, 1878. p. 1 – via Chronicling America.
  • "Oberlin and a noted resident". Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York). January 12, 1885. p. 4 – via newspapers.com.
  • Edwards, J. Passmore (1852). Uncle Tom's Companions: Or, A Supplement to Uncle Tom's Cabin: Being Startling Incidents in the Lives of Celebrated Fugitive Slaves. London: Edwards & Co. pp. 75–77.
  • "From the Boston Traveler". The New York Times. Vol. XXXI, no. 9616. July 3, 1882. Retrieved October 19, 2020.
There is no bot that can fix the citation issues, all that one has to do is pick one citation format (I recommend {{sfn}}) and make sure the article consistently follows it. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can bring the article to a place where Buidhe is satisfied on the sourcing, and everyone else is satisfied with prose, I am willing to help standardize the format. I don't have time to undertake that work until/unless everything else here is squared away. Please ping me if/when we reach that point. My preferred style would be to move to sfns on books or for very long journal articles where page number citations are needed, and leaving everything else in ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for sharing this info and for your help on this. As an FYI, it'll be a few days before I can make a new round of citation updates b/c I'm swamped with other work. Once I get this new work completed I'll let everyone know.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the other 19th century citations and replaced them with modern ones. Any other places that need citations either added or updated? If not, okay if we move to standardizing the citation style across the entire article?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe if other concerns are addressed, I can work on citations. SouthernNights are you OK with sfns on all book sources, but ref tags on everything else (that is, those that don't need short notes with page nos)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what to say, although I don't see anything egregious in the current version, literature is not the main area I edit so I don't feel confident in asserting the content has no issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to know at this point is, if I spend an entire day cleaning up citations, am I going to find that I was cleaning up an FA that was never going to be salvaged anyway. I recognize you can't definitively make a declaration at this point, but if anyone knows of any deficiencies in the article now that would prevent it being kept as an FA, I'd appreciate knowing that before I work on cleaning up citations, so my time is not misspent. (And SouthernNights, since you haven't responded, if you don't have a preferred citation style, shall I use my preference, which is easier for me?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I don't have a preferred citation style so I'll use whichever you prefer (meaning I'm okay with sfns on all book sources and ref tags on everything else). Buidhe, my work at Wikipedia has mainly focused on literary topics and I heavily researched the update to this article for the FAR. I feel very confident the article's content is solid and will hold up for years to come.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of citation issues
  • In the Bibliography section, we need ISBNs for the version of the books that the page numbers are provided for.
  • The page ranges on Lott are too broad for verification; SouthernNights, once I'm done (and you will see now how easy it is to locate the sfns for Lott and change the page numbers as needed, use p for one page and pp for a range) those need to be narrowed down.
  • Wilson: is the text cited to the Frontcover, or is there a missing page number ?
  • I am moving sources that are not used to Further reading: those will need to be checked and pruned.
  • There are missing page numbers on books.
  • You mentioned that Awadewit had helped on this article; her early work contained original research. Is this text verified by the source, or is a conclusion drawn by the writer? We need a page number to an independent source that makes this claim from this author: "The novels either implied or directly stated that African Americans were a childlike people[100] unable to live their lives without being directly overseen by white people.[page needed][101]"
  • Some laxity in sources making this slow work: is Rosenthal the editor or the author? There was a missing "A" on the book title, but without an ISBN, I can't be sure what we're looking at.
    • From this, it appears that Rosenthal is Editor, and all of the Rosenthal sources should be citing a chapter. If so, I need the chapter info on each Rosenthal citation to write the sfns correctly. Marianne Noble, "The Ecstasies of Sentimental Wounding in Uncle Tom's Cabin," from Debra J. Rosenthal (ed.), A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Routledge, 2003, p. 58. The remaining Rosenthal citations all reference Rosenthal's intro materials, not specific essays.
  • The article says the Tompkins book is In Sensational Designs, but Worldcat says it is Sensational Designs ...
  • Similar to Lott, the page ranges on Tompkins are too broad for verification and need to be individually adjusted.
    All corrected except this one: de Rosa 2003, On p. 121, de Rosa quotes Tompkins 1985, pp. 122–146 that Stowe's strategy was to destroy slavery through the "saving power of Christian love". In that essay, Tompkins also writes: "Stowe conceived her book as an instrument for bringing about the day when the world would be ruled not by force, but by Christian love.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am seeing a bigger problem ahead: none of the journal articles cited list page ranges, so without looking each one up, we don't know whether those page ranges are too large for verification. And, they aren't easily looked up, as they are also lacking DOIs or any sort of ID. Journal articles with broad page ranges need specific page numbers, as with books.
  • Some of the Appiah Gates page nos are 44, and a bunch others are 544: please check that that is not a typo.
  • There is a mixture of citation styles, so I have templated the lot to create consistency.
  • There is a sourcing that needs scrutiny as to high quality for an FA; hard to tell what they are, consolidating list:
  • "Stowe acknowledged in 1853 that Henson's writings inspired Uncle Tom's Cabin.[20][21]" The first citation does not fully verify the text ( "A last instance parallel with that of Uncle Tom is to be found in the published memoirs of the venerable Josiah Henson..." ... a parallel between is not the same as one having inspired the other), and the second is not freely accessible for verification, so I have added a request quote.
    Removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eight hours, and I have not finished the citation cleanup; stopping for the night at the "Reactions to the novel" section, will finish another day. There are a number of obstacles for this article to retain status: the almost total absence of ISBNs, several places I had to place maintenance tags, and the article quality is variable, with patches of poor sourcing and prose that is not at FA standard, or both. It will take more than SouthernNights and my citation cleanup for this article to retain its star. Mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished converting all that I can do; the journals are only partially done, as specific page numbers are needed on many of them. SouthernNights, here are samples of how the journal citations need to be fixed, with the full page range listed as a source, but the specific page number supporting the text used as an sfn: Nichols, and Jones, only a two-page article, so page nos not needed.
From the list I left above, the ISBN work is the most daunting, and I can't help on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll dig into the these issues this weekend and see what I can do. However, I may not be able to address all this over the weekend. As for the ISBNs, according to citing sources that is optional for books. Why are we trying to add all the ISBNs if they're optional and the books can be looked up with the info already provided?--SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no hurry. On books that have more than one edition, we need to know which edition the page numbers are cited to, and that comes with an ISBN. It's kinda hard to verify content if you're using page numbers from the wrong edition of a book :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, SouthernNights, Nikkimaria may have a more generalized answer to the query about ISBNs; she is more up on that than I am. And, it's equally important that you break down some of the long page ranges to something manageable, that the reader can actually verify (on both books and long journal articles). Now that an sfn system is place, that should be easier to do, as you just have to change the page nos on the sfn p= or pp= parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to helping to determine editions, ISBNs also allow for more easy access to full text / locating print copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an FYI, I have major non-Wikipedia projects due, so I may not be able to get to theses item for a week or two (I was overly optimistic when I said I'd have time this weekend).--SouthernNights (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    SouthernNights any plan now for continuing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'm finishing up my non-Wikipedia work that's under deadline. I'll have time middle of next week to return to the article. I believe I can resolve the remaining issues in a day or two once I have the time to get into it.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good progress made; the list above needs to be reviewed, and there is still one citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I still have more work on the article but it may be a few days before I can finish.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all the issues have been resolved, but if I missed anything let me know. The only thing I didn't change from the citations lists above was to remove the University of Virginia's Uncle Tom's Cabin and American Culture: A Multi-Media Archive as a citation. This is an incredibly reliable and detailed resource, being edited by a professor at the University of Virginia's Dept. of English with funding for the archive provided by both the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. As further proof of this multi-media archive being a reliable source, it has been cited a number of times in academic literature. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, AleatoryPonderings, Barkeep49, Indy beetle, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: SouthernNights has updated this 2007 FA to bring it to modern standards; as you have time, might you read through and suggest if there are any issues remaining? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still issues with citation consistency. Some journal refs are cited using sfn referencing, others are inline. Suggest converting all to sfn with specific page numbers.
I will work on those (was waiting for SouthernNights to finish). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved all journals to sfns and indicated where page nos are missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The characters section is not entirely sourced.
Are the lead citations necessary? Is this info cited in the body or not? (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on the character sourcing. And yes, I believe we should have the lead citations even though the info is also cited in the body b/c the manual of style says the lead should be "carefully sourced."--SouthernNights (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a higher-quality source than this archived article for the claims about Josiah Henson in the Sources section. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does "Tom and Eva begin to relate to one another" mean? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resolved all the new issues that were raised. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work, SouthernNights! From this diff of the changes you made, the Vicary book needs to be standardized to the same format as the other sources (does it need a page no?), and you need to use p for a single page number and pp for a range. Could you adjust those faulty ps and pps? I won't be able to review for at least a week; perhaps others will look in as you finalize the changes here: @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I just made those corrections you mentioned. As an FYI, the Vicary source is an online reference, not a book (the American National Biography Online from Oxford University Press is a subscriber-based online resource). But I changed this source's style to the cite web style we already used in the article. Will that work?--SouthernNights (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give this a read through soon. I read the book in high school, we'll see how much I remember I guess. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, HF! SouthernNights, you're in good hands with the other reviewers here. As I will be away at a wedding, the @WP:FAR coordinators: can consider me satisfied once B, HF, Z and AP are ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've started work on FAR talk page. Hog Farm Talk 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished my read-through. Just have a few content/prose questions and one concern about image licensing (I don't think the Babb movie poster meets the non-free content guidelines). Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A late response to the ping: the content seems fine; a comment on the structure. The last 4 paras of "Literary significance and theories" - i.e. the theories - seem a bit out of place where they are. I think they'd fit better with Major themes. (If they are not all "major", perhaps a Themes section with Major themes and Theories as subsections? Just a thought.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All edits and suggestions have been completed. Are we good to go with the FAR? --SouthernNights (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope to be able to read through later today; Hog Farm is on a break; @Olivaw-Daneel:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The themes section looks good now, but just noticing it isn't summarized in the lead; style and literary reception aren't, either. (Looking at the article history, the lead is largely unchanged from the 2007 GA version, at which time those 3 sections were not in the article.) Can it be reworked to cover those sections? A more minor comment: I don't think lead citations are needed unless the material is controversial; even then, 3 refs after a sentence seems like overkill. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree about the lead. The themes and style are covered by this sentence: "She wrote the sentimental novel to depict the reality of slavery while also asserting that Christian love could overcome slavery." The style section essentially discusses sentimental novels while the major theme is the reality of slavery and Christian love.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it gives due weight to the literary reaction or to those sections, looking at their relative emphasis in the body. (As noted above, the lead predates the addition of those sections!) Anyway, I have no issues with the body, so I'm not going to oppose based on this. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; my concerns have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep looks like the article has seen major improvement, any remaining issues are not worth taking the article to FAR over so I guess this can be closed @WP:FAR coordinators: (t · c) buidhe 20:47, 22 May 2022 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC) [2].

Óengus I edit

Notified: Deacon of Pndapetzim, Stemonitis, Laird of abbeyhill, WP Medieval Scotland, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Middle Ages, WP Politics, noticed in January 2021

The first half of this article is largely referenced with footnotes rather than citations, and it is quite unclear that many of these footnotes are actually intended to support the text as references. For instance, it's not clear if "John Bannerman, Studies in the History of Dalriada (1974), remains the standard work on Dál Riata." is actually meant as a footnote about a general source, or if it's meant to source the content. "Óengus and the Picts appear occasionally in Welsh sources, such as the Annales Cambriae, and more frequently in Northumbrian sources," is apparently sourced to a note referring to where the primary sources are generally collected; if that note is suppose to be direct support for how often Oengus is referenced, it is not obvious. There are also small amounts of uncited text, including several of the footnotes. As it is not clear if the issues here are lack of support or just a problematic referencing format, I was reluctant to take this here, but as it was one of the oldest at both WP:URFA/2020A and WP:FARGIVEN, I decided to get a hearing here. Hopefully this can get sorted out and the star can be kept. The largest contributor is Angus McClellan, who has sadly passed on, so hopefully this can be rescued in their memory. Hog Farm Talk 04:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: - I see you've added some sources here - any thoughts on this one? Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: per the last sentence of your nom, I'd also like to keep the article's status. It shouldn't be impossible; I've a few of the sources and others are available. It's really a matter of time—apart from weekends, I only have a couple of hours in the evenings for WP at the moment, so it could be a slow process. Particularly as I might have over-extended my supply lines, as it were, a bit  :) SN54129 18:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take the time you need, just keep us posted on updates :) Hog Farm Talk 19:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: Thanks for working on the article, but it looks like you haven't edited it since 26 March. Would it be better to put it on hold until you have time to focus on this article? (t · c) buidhe 10:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Yes Sir! Buidhe, get you from the Gunnery Sergeant's training school :p My Song, to help remind me: "This is at FAR / This is begun / This is a citation / This is for fun"  :) SN54129 19:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it is not clear if the issues here are lack of support or just a problematic referencing format summed it up, I still haven't a clue. As a result, I added sources for things that ought to have them, and checked source/text integrity as I went. Sometimes this failed, and text was removed in its entirely. This especially applied to the bizarre footnotes, the number of which has been reduced; in some cases merged with the text, in others the cites have been used as actual cites rather than vague gestures towards general sources. 53 refs when I began. 138 now. I think V is satis. (Although note I'm waiting for a couple of chapters unavailable to, me from WP:RX).
    Glaoch feirmeoir muc  :) SN54129 17:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great work! I can re-review this week if you're ready, but it's looking to be in good shape now. Hog Farm Talk 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm: yeah, go ahead. I've only been looking at sourcing and sc/txt integrity, but feel free to take a broader look. The only other thing off the top of my head is replacing the IB image (which wasn't PD-Art licence worthy in the first place) and alt text, which I've added. Removed duplicate links. Can't think of anything else at this time of night! SN54129 18:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead refers to him as the son of Fergus, but this relationship doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body?
    Added some background re his father and their many names (also Fergus is even more shadowy than the rest!)
  • "and Talorgan (died 782)" - the linked Talorgan gives different dates, but has a confusing history and appears to have been hijacked for a possibly different Talorgan?
    Yes; I boldly restored the original version; I can't find anyone relevant to this name who died in the year the 'revised' article proposed, so it's either a mistake or an attempted hoax I guess. Anyway, this Talorgan has sources; that newer one did not. Have also added a sourced (and colorful!) family tree which hopefully illustrates the complex relations of the article.
  • "Historians have noted Óengus's decisive military victories over a broad geographical area,[136], his cultural patronage[137][114] religious foundation of St Andrews.[94]" - something seems to have gone wrong here
    Yes, my English. Corrected.
  • "until defeat at the hands of Vikings in 839 began a new period of instability, ending with the coming to power of another Pictish line, that of Cináed mac Ailpín." - in the lead, doesn't seem to be reflected in the body?
    Bodified, sourced.
  • "The unprecedented gains he made, and the legacy he left, mean Óengus can be considered the first king of what would become Scotland." - in the lead, not seeing this claim in the body?
    Ditto, added sourced material. Now 142 refs.

@Serial Number 54129: - This one's close to a keep, I think. Looks like the lead is the source of most of what I spotted. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Right, think I caught them; I realise that, as I was focussing on referencing, and the lead is rarely referenced, ergo, I paid little attention to it. A lesson there! I've commented on your suggestions above. SN54129 03:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all the concerns I had here have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep referencing problems seem to have been sorted. I made some MOS edits, but otherwise I think this is a keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted 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) 2:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC) [3].

Belgrade edit

Notified: Abductive, Hadžija, Duja, No such user, WEBDuB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Cities, Feb 22

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs significant improvement. Parts of the article aren't cited and other parts need updating. Some sections such as tourism are bloated and need a concise rewrite. See Sandy's detailed list on talk. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, this is not up to par, the history section seems well-referenced but significant parts of the rest aren't. An example that I noticed was how here's a whole fashion section but its first and only (?) inline reference is to an "about us" page of a fashion event, which is probably just a primary source. A lot of the e.g. weather statistics aren't well referenced inline, either. The article needs a fair bit of work to regain featured status. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: no edits since Buidhe's nomination. Uncited sections exist in lots of places. Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC no edits since 30 April 2022‎. Issues unresolved (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC, and an intrepid editor might also consider shifting some text to History of Belgrade and consolidating here. CMD (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues are unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 14:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per comments above. CMD (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist lack of improvement (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues remain, no edits since April. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist a fair bit of work needed. Hog Farm Talk 01:32, 28 May 2022 (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) 2:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC) [4].

Fin whale edit

Notified: Rlendog, Neil916, LittleJerry, WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Cetaceans, WikiProject Marine life, talk page notice 2022-03-09

Review section edit

The article seems to be outdated. It has several unsourced statements, ref bombs, and image sandwiching. The entire article needs to be rewritten for it to be improved, and some of the sub-sections could be merged into others. There are also some questionable sources that have been used and expand templates. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna pass on this one. Already worked on blue whale and humpback whale. This one doesn't interest me much. Same with sei whale. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good, many thanks for the work on those articles. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: While there has been some work on this article, I am concerned that these are one-off fixes, and not a long-term, sustained campaign to fix up the article. Unsourced statements, needed updates, and large sections need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, a few improvements but they have not been sustained and the most serious issues are unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 14:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unsourced content, cleanup banners still present (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no improvements since move to FARC. Sections still need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2022 (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) 2:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC) [5].

Cretan War (205–200 BC) edit

Notified: Kyriakos, Robth, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Rome, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, Dec 2021

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted by the great T8612:

This article is no longer up to FA standards. Several entire paragraphs rely exclusively on Polybius or Livy and lack modern sources, especially in "Roman intervention". Among the latter, Hammond and Walbank are the best sources on Macedonia, but Walbank's Commentary on Polybius is missing, as well as Paul Cartledge's works on Sparta.

None of these problems have been addressed since the article was noticed in 2021. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re. primary sourcing, it hasn't even got the excuse of being added later. Piotrus even commented on an over-reliance on primary sources at its FAC, fifteen years ago. All its life. SN54129
Wikipedia mills grind slowly, apparently. High time to delist it due to the primary sources issue. What was ok in 2006 is not ok in 2022. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted, lots of primary sourcing. Unless someone is prepared to re-cite close to everything, this one is going to be demoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no significant engagement towards issues. Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Hog Farm (t · c) buidhe 20:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per comments by Gog and T8612. This one is in better shape than several other recently delisted ones like Thrasybulus or War against Nabis, but does need improvements which have not been forthcoming. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist lack of improvements. (t · c) buidhe 13:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist sourcing issues have not been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2022 (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) 2:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC) [6].

Cleomenean War edit

Notified: Kyriakos, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, 2021-05-09

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as outlined by T8612 on the talk page, there is an overreliance on primary sources within the article, which I agree with. There's also harvref errors. Z1720 (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that review is needed. The featured article criteria say stuff like: well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. Repeating Polybius and Plutarch is not a "through and representative survey of the relevant literature". Ifly6 (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that the maps look imprecise. T8612 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely cited to primary sources, which is not very satisfactory at any level, and will nearly all need replacing if this is to retain its FA status. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - There's been so little engagement that the last 50 edits go back 10 years as of the writing of this comment. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits to address FAR concerns so far. The sourcing concerns noted by subject-matter expert T8612 remain outstanding. Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:38, 18 May 2022 (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) 2:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [7].

Stretford edit

Notified: Malleus Fatuorum, Nev1, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject Greater Manchester, noticed by Hog Farm, Oct 2021

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it needs updating and has 21 [citation needed] tags. More details on talk. (t · c) buidhe 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - uncited text remains. Also looks like some updating is needed in the education section. The sport section has some issues as well - "The new cricket ground will be at the heart of a 750,000 square feet (69,677 m2) development that will also include business space, residential, retail, hotel and leisure facilities" - sourced to something from 2007 and "Trafford is one of the UK's top athletic clubs" sourced to Trafford's own website. Hog Farm Talk 14:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above, no progress (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist issues flagged haven't been addressed to date (t · c) buidhe 01:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No significant edits since nomination, citation needed concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist improvements ain't been happening. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 12 May 2022 (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) 2:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [8].

Sei whale edit

Notified: Neil916, BulbousCow, WikiProject Mammals, WikiProject Cetaceans, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Marine life, talk page notice 2022-03-09

Review section edit

The article suffers from a lot of issues. It has a lot of unsourced statements and some refutations/ref bomb. Most sections also need to be rewritten, like the description section and conservation status. The Mass deaths section should probably be combined with the "whaling" section. There are also some dead urls in the sourcing that can be improved, including other questionable sources that are used. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC Population estimates needs to be update, and probably merged into conservation. Post-protection whaling section suffers from too many block quotes which make the section hard to read. Citation needed templates need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per all of the above, and skimpy lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm Talk 13:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, structure and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, in need of update, dead links and potentially dated content. Prose/structure problems, including too brief lead. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, minimal edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist lack of substantial improvements (t · c) buidhe 01:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 14:36, 12 May 2022 (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) 2:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [9].

Accurate News and Information Act edit

Notified: Steve Smith, WikiProject Freedom of speech, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Law, [10]

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I am concerned that this article is missing significant research and commentary from a variety of sources. This is one of Wikipedia's shorter FAs, so I did a search to see if there were additional sources published, especially after this article's promotion. After a quick search, I was able to find some sources that were not in the article. Today, I did another search and quickly found more sources that could be included in the article. These sources are from academic publications such as university presses. These sources have been placed on the article's talk page.

I am also concerned that there is no Legacy section, and the Aftermath section stops with a newspaper receiving a Pulitzer Prize; since this went to the Supreme Court of Canada, I would like information about how this ruling was referenced in other court cases or what precedence it might have established for future cases. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per above, no edits (t · c) buidhe 13:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits since March, the concerns about unused sources are still present. Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist would need substantial edits to meet comprehensiveness/well-researched (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this article does not appear to be comprehensive enough in the aftermath section. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 12 May 2022 (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) 2:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [11].

United States Military Academy edit

Notified: Buffs, Ahodges7, Madcoverboy, Alex Middleton, BlueAg09, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Higher education diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

This is a 2009 FA that's aged better than some but is still showing its age. I raised sandwiching concerns for this article on its talk page back in June, which went unanswered. Returning to it now, I'm seeing some additional issues. Even considering that West Point has had plenty of notable alumni, the section is still clearly far too long, particularly with the photos (something we've discussed generally at WT:HED and elsewhere several times). Some of the sectioning choices are questionable—why is "commemoration" level 2? And there are smaller tune-ups needed. For instance, I find it questionable to have a notes section just to give a detail about Howard. And what does the 1911 Britannica entry possibly contribute that justifies linking to it in the external links section? Assuming that this doesn't turn around, this is the last URFA on a contemporary higher education institution, and it's an important one (VA-5) in an active topic area (military history), so I hope there's some possibility to save it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D I agree that this isn't a FA at present, and would need a bit of work to regain that status. I have the following comments:

  • I agree that the 'Notable alumni' section is rubbish. These sections are generally not great in articles on higher education institutions as they churn out lots of people who go on to do notable things, but the problem is particularly bad here given that West Point is a long established elite institution that has always been focused on educating the future elite of the US Army so a disproportionally high proportion of its graduates have achieved notability. If this section is retained, it should be a thematic discussion of the types of graduates the USMA has produced and the types of impacts they've had rather than just a huge list of names and images.
  • I also agree that there are way too many images. Some of them don't seem well chosen as well.
  • The lead doesn't really capture the historic and modern importance of this institution to the US Army
  • Too many sources in the history section are linked to the USMA
  • "As World War II engulfed Europe, Congress authorized an increase to 2,496 cadets in 1942" - World War II "engulfed" Europe in 1939, not 1942
  • "West Point played a prominent role in WWII; four of the five five-star generals were alumni and nearly 500 graduates died" - surely West Point graduates played this role, not the academy itself?
  • The para starting with 'West Point was not immune to the social upheaval of American society' doesn't really explain what the impact was.
  • "At the height of the Cold War in October 1987, President Reagan visited the academy and delivered a speech about ending the Evil Empire." - no reference, not sure that 1987 was really the 'height' of the Cold War.
  • "but the practice ended in 1973 after national scrutiny" - not sure what 'national scrutiny' means?
  • The article doesn't seem to explain how the USMA fits in with the US Army's broader officer and role-specific training systems
  • The article doesn't explain how West Point graduates are seen in the Army or broader society. Some depictions of 'West Pointers' within the Army depict them as impractical elitists while others are positive.
  • The range of book sources cited seems fairly narrow, with most being non-critical of the institution and/or of low quality. It would be interesting to draw on works analysing the US Army's performance in various wars and works analysing its training system to provide a more rounded assessment. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nearly every general officer of note from either army during the Civil War was a graduate of West Point and a West Point graduate commanded the forces of one or both sides in every one of the 60 major battles of the war" - seems a bit questionable? At least it seems designed to make the rate of West Point graduates seem higher than it was - per Ezra J. Warner's Generals in Gray, out of 425 CSA generals, 146 were West Point graduates, with another 10 who did not complete. Warner's Generals in Blue lists 583 Union generals, of whom 217 were West Point graduates with 11 more non-graduates. When discussing only "generals of note", the terminology is quite vaguely defined but also dubious - cf. Nathan Bedford Forrest, Richard Taylor (Confederate general), Sterling Price, Nathaniel P. Banks, Wade Hampton III, John A. Logan, and many others. I have no idea how they're defining "60 major battles" - the system I see used the most is the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission listing of 384 "principal battles". The list of 384 is further broken down in classes of importance, with the 45 class "A" listings being judged the most important. One of these is the Battle of Mansfield, which was fought between the armies of Banks and Taylor, neither of whom were West Point graduates. I'm sure the sources used for this (two USMA sources and a book written by a former USMA visiting professor) are using their own technical definitions to support this, but these overinflate the claims. Hog Farm Talk 17:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buffs I was tagged in this and feel it's currently inappropriate for me to weigh in on this article's status. I am diligently working on Texas A&M and have significant concerns about this process being tilted against older FAs. I feel that any input here could be seen as attempting to bring down other articles or furthering an agenda. I believe that the article met FA criteria when it was nominated and, in general, is better than 99.9% of the articles out there. our efforts should be focused on fixing these articles, not pointing out their flaws. It's easy to point out flaws. It's tough to fix them. In general, I challenge those submitting FARs to focus their efforts on creating/bolstering content rather than providing criticism of others. Accordingly, I'm going to abstain. Buffs (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I find it highly disheartening that literally every institution of higher learning that has been brought to this forum was delisted (this is the only one remaining). It may not be someone's agenda to delist them all, but it certainly feels that way. Buffs (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's indeed disheartening, but for the featured designation to mean anything, we need to ensure that every article we list deserves its star. When they don't and no one steps up to fix them, this is what needs to happen. We should be making every effort to incentivize FA saves, and there's been some great discussion of that elsewhere, but it's a difficult ask. As some silver lining, a delisting is never the end of the road for an article—it can always be revived in the future, and the feedback during an FAR lays the groundwork for that. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"We should be making every effort to incentivize FA saves" A 100% loss rate? Clearly "every effort" is not happening. Not counting myself, five people have weighed in on the article with no significant attempts to resolve or improve the article. Buffs (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, it's more of a matter that not many editors can write about higher education at a FA level. There's so many FAs that need work that we have to pick and choose where we'd be most effective. Nick-D has helped revive Operation Ten-Go, Z1720 did good work in saving Nigel Kneale from being delisted, Sandy did a lot at J. K. Rowling to keep it at FA, and I recently completely re-wrote Thomas C. Hindman to prevent it from going to FAR. There's just only so much time and energy that those of us who work with older FAs have, so we have to prioritize what we're going to be able to do the best job at saving. Unfortunately, very few still-active editors are capable of writing content about higher education at a FA-level. I for one, wouldn't have little clue of what is considered standard to include, and what generally isn't. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC issues brought up have not been addressed. (t · c) buidhe 10:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement to address considerable issues, edits since FAR initiation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, I guess, there just hasn't been enough going on with this one. I lack the sourcing to even attempt to work on this one. Hog Farm Talk 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: an IP made significant contributions last week, but nothing else has happened. The lede is too long, with six paragraphs and too much information. Alumni section is too long, and the Traditions section suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and can probably be trimmed. Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues unaddressed, sum of changes since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist issues are unaddressed, huge sandwiching and image concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - my concerns about the Civil War section are unaddressed. I'm not sure why the article gives that higher of a figure for the Union than Warner, who is considered to be one of the standard works in the field. I suspect that the source here is using brevet ranks to make the count seem higher, which should be noted if that's the case as brevet generals didn't really hold that rank for command purposes and many of them were promotions once the war was over, so they didn't actually even have the brevet in command. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist image sandwiching and some uncited text, for starters. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my comments above, and those offered by other editors. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2022 (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) 2:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC) [12].

4chan edit

Notified: Trade, Giggy, IksDe, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Websites, 18 December 2021

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns identified by Retired Duke on the talk page 3 months ago, mainly sourcing and datedness. This is a widely viewed article so hopefelly someone is willing to restore it. (t · c) buidhe 22:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be happy to amend the article and address the concerns as best I can. DMT Biscuit (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! As suggested by RD a good start would be incorporating some of the academic research on 4chan. Here are some suggestions of works that might be cited:
@Buidhe: Hi. I've emended the article thus far; I am writing to enquire on any specific areas you think work could be improved and/or vanquished. I've issued my own cautions and questions on the talk page, sadly to little fare. Personally, I think this article has a lot of flaws, beyond the nominally natural (chronology) and some foundational. Summarization - or lack thereof - is glaring and is my main area of focus, presently. If this were to be at FAC now, I would oppose. All the same, show must go own. DMT Biscuit (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DMT Biscuit thanks so much for your work on the article so far. I'd agree with you that it needs substantial work in order to get it to meeting the FA criteria. The question is, is there someone willing to do it? Obviously you're not required to work on this article I agree that trivia is an issue, which could be reduced by relying more on scholarly sources or retrospectives rather than the news cycle. Another issue that I noticed was the citing of questionable sources such as Gawker, International Business Times, Forbes contributors, Metro, fimoculous (self-published website), Digiom Blog, as well as a considerable amount of self-sourcing. Many of these sources would need to be removed/replaced to meet the high-quality RS requirement. Other than that, I'm not really sure which sections need work. The article can stay at FAR as long as someone is working on it, but if you're done with the improvements you plan to make it should go to FARC. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I am going to hash out some more summary changes and source review, for the greatest griveances. I am in agreement that it should go to FARC. There, hopefully, we can corrdinate some fresh eyes and set our sights on the heavy lifting. DMT Biscuit (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knuttila, Lee (2011). "User unknown: 4chan, anonymity and contingency". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v16i10.3665. ISSN 1396-0466.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  • Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78535-544-8.
  • Trammell, Matthew (2014). "User investment and behavior policing on 4chan". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v19i2.4819. ISSN 1396-0466.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  • Elley, Ben (2021). ""The rebirth of the West begins with you!"—Self-improvement as radicalisation on 4chan". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 8 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00732-x. ISSN 2662-9992.
  • Thorleifsson, Cathrine (2022). "From cyberfascism to terrorism: On 4chan/pol/ culture and the transnational production of memetic violence". Nations and Nationalism. 28 (1): 286–301. doi:10.1111/nana.12780.
  • Shane, Tommy; Willaert, Tom; Tuters, Marc (2022). "The rise of "gaslighting": debates about disinformation on Twitter and 4chan, and the possibility of a "good echo chamber"". Popular Communication: 1–15. doi:10.1080/15405702.2022.2044042.
  • Tuters, Marc (2020). "Esoteric Fascism Online: 4chan and the Kali Yuga". Far-Right Revisionism and the End of History. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-003-02643-3.
  • Hagen, Sal (2022). "'Who is /ourguy/?': Tracing panoramic memes to study the collectivity of 4chan/pol/". New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/14614448221078274.
  • Merrin, William (2019). "President Troll: Trump, 4Chan and Memetic Warfare". Trump’s Media War. Springer International Publishing. pp. 201–226. ISBN 978-3-319-94069-4.
  • Baele, Stephane J.; Brace, Lewys; Coan, Travis G. (2021). "Variations on a Theme? Comparing 4chan, 8kun, and Other chans' Far-Right "/pol" Boards". Perspectives on Terrorism. 15 (1): 65–80. ISSN 2334-3745.
  • Tuters, Marc; Jokubauskaitė, Emilija; Bach, Daniel (2018). "Post-Truth Protest: How 4chan Cooked Up the Pizzagate Bullshit". M/C Journal. 21 (3). doi:10.5204/mcj.1422.
  • Ludemann, Dillon (2018). "/pol/emics: Ambiguity, scales, and digital discourse on 4chan". Discourse, Context & Media. 24: 92–98. doi:10.1016/j.dcm.2018.01.010.
  • Tuters, Marc; Hagen, Sal (2020). "(((They))) rule: Memetic antagonism and nebulous othering on 4chan". New Media & Society. 22 (12): 2218–2237. doi:10.1177/1461444819888746.

(t · c) buidhe 23:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC per above, we've definitely seen some major improvements but a lot more would be needed to bring this article to meet the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DMT Biscuit: are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in any capacity which should upend the FARC process, as for which I support the move. DMT Biscuit (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may take a stab at this one, depending on other editors' interest. That being said, I'll need significant time to familiarize myself with the topic. Thanks to Buidhe for providing some sources. Ovinus (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been no significant edits since my last edit on 26 April 2022‎. Ovinus, are you still planning to work on the article? (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for pinging. No, probably not; I'd need to do a lot more research than I can reasonably commit to doing in the next month. Ovinus (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per cited issues. Ovinus (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:36, 13 May 2022 (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) 4:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC) [13].

John W. Johnston edit

Notified: Plange, Hmains, WP Bio, WP Politics, WP US Congress, WP Virginia, talk page notice 2021-12-01

Review section edit

This 2006 promotion needs some work to comply with FA standards. The original nominator, Plange (once a stalwart of WP:BIO) has not edited for over two years, and hasn't edited the article since 2007. As mentioned on talk on 2021-12-01, there is uncited text, and some questions about sourcing. Hopefully the article can be tuned up for a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I saw a copyright notice at Plange's talk when doing the notifications: [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked most of the cites to Blake - no copyvio, although the page numbers seem slightly off. I am unsure of the reliability of Lang and King. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no edits (t · c) buidhe 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, last edit was in December, uncited text remains, I would also like someone to copyedit and remove most of the short pharagraphs. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2022 (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) 4:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC) [15].

Bernard Fanning edit

Notified: Giggy, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Australian music, WikiProject Queensland, WikiProject Brisbane, WikiProject Powderfinger, WikiProject Pop music, 2021-12-22

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has not received much updating since it was promoted. The 2012-present section is short, the "Style" section does not have post-2007 sources, and the political section does not have post-2008 sources. There have only been minor edits to the article since I posted my notice in December. FAC nominator's last major edit was 2009 so I have not posted on their talk page. No other major contributors. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox already has problems with the list of instruments. Template:Infobox musical artist states Instruments listed in the infobox should be limited to only those that the artist is primarily known for using. The instruments infobox parameter is not intended as a WP:COATRACK for every instrument the subject has ever used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - some edits, but they weren't addressing the issues that led to the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist updates of more recent biographical info and analysis are still missing. Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2022 (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/May_2022&oldid=1090205851"