Reviewing featured articles This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. 1. Raise issues at the article's talk page
2. Featured article review (FAR)
3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere. Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:
Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.
|
Featured article reviews
All You Need Is Love (JAMs song)
- Notified: Kingboyk, Joefromrandb, WP Electronic music, WP Hip hop, talk page notice 2021-10-09
This 2006 FA has not been maintained to FA standards; there is considerable uncited text, the lead is underdeveloped, sourcing is sub-standard and vague (eg "News item, Sounds, 12 September 1987."), and a good deal of the content is quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Samuel Merrill Woodbridge
- Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP Bio, WP Christianity, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This one's short and most of the sources are online, so I'll try to gradually give it checks and note the results on FAR talk. Hog Farm Talk 21:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
A Song for Simeon
- Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other significant contributors, WP England, WP Poetry, WP Christianity, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Duino Elegies
- Notified: FAC nominator blocked, Khazar2, Curly Turkey, Johnbod, Gerda, WP Germany, WP Poetry, WP Switzerland, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see Gerda Arendt is combing through this one, making helpful edits. What is most urgently needed on all six procedural nominations is for someone who has access to the sources to do a source-to-text integrity check. What has been found in the other FAs is that the sources do not verify the text, and it appears that at no time did any FAC review scrutinize sources, which allowed the hoax articles to grow to seven FAs via FACs that only nitpicked the prose. It seems that none of the sources for this article are available online, so unless someone accesses a majority of them and does a through source review of most of the article, I envision entering a Delist declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Gerda I have been invited and feel responsible as this is about German literature. I am not familiar with the elegies, though (but read Malte Laurids Brigge when growing up), and I have often trouble recognising what something given in English might have been in German. Often - in this article - only English is given, and even when there are both, there's this trouble, such as "aus der Engel Ordnungen" (from the legendary first line) which has no hint of "hierarchies".
I did a round of copy-edits, dropping some extra years of people with a link, removing links to common terms, such things. I tried to use the past tense for Rilke's writing process throughout, - a major change - thinking that this was clearly written in a past, and doesn't profit from a construed immediacy. I left the present tense for the writer of the last lines, - no idea yet who that is and what his evalution counts.
I did this today in fond memory of Brian Boulton whose birthday is today, and who supported the FAC in 2013, hoping that in the end, we can support his view. I plan to do a round of source-checking, and may also look at the equivalent German article. Both probably not today.
Last time I dealt with a poetry article by the same author, Victoria was very helpful, but I don't know about her availability and readiness for this subject. That article is now part of a featured topic, thanks to Eddie891 who might also be a good advisor here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda, I'm finding no indication of a Featured topic in the articlehistory template on talk; was that missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, never mind ... I see you were referring to "that" (a different) article; sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, no problem. This is my first FAR, so I hope for understanding that I am not familiar with the process such as "no sections". I don't understand it, though, because with several editors busy commenting, that just invites edit conflicts, no?
- As for sources, while many were not given online, they may be available. Example #61 Gadamer: The Relevance of the Beautiful: Art as Play, Symbol, and Festival. Will take extra search for the position in the book because no page number is given in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The practice here is more typically to work on the article without listing each and every nitpick, or if there are many editors at work at once, to use the talk page associated with the FAR, and then ping in the broader audience when the article is ready for a new look. That is, we tend to leave you to work in peace, at the pace that suits you :). (I deviated from the usual practice of using the talk page in the Palladian architecture FAR, only because I'm the only editor entering commentary, but hesitate to make the changes myself, and didn't expect any edit conflicts.) As you find sources available online, hopefully they'll get linked in the article; thanks for working towards a "save" here. And I guess the missing page nos will also have to be dealt with ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments from Kusma Not sure if I'll manage a full review, just wanted to comment on something Gerda said: I find the "hierarchies of angels" not implausible at all, and this translation also uses "angelic hierarchies" for "angelic orders". May check back later. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Just saw this. I'll work on verifying the integrity of text to source where I can. Though, the next three weeks will be touch and go until I have time to focus. I'll also edit as I go, hoping to keep it light as the article looks thorough on the surface. Gerda, if my edits get in your way, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome; thanks, Wtfiv, as we know you have serious (albeit at times unpleasant :) experience when it comes to source-to-text integrity! As you know, the FAR Coords will allow all the time necessary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Update?
If this is trying to be retained as featured, it should probably also be updated. The last translation mentioned dates from 1981, but by now we have also 2000, 2013 and 2014, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Gerda pinged me here. All I have to add is that many years ago I made a few clean up edits to When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd (same editor) and did find some issues - though don't remember exactly what off the top of my head. The editor uses the "rp" citation style, so it's easy to find their additions. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
See the source check at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey/archive1, which is similar to what has been found in every ColonelHenry FA looked at so far; every source will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Finn M. W. Caspersen
- Notified: FAC nominator blocked, no other active editors, WP New Jersey, WP Bio, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Alcohol laws of New Jersey
- Notified: no active editors, nominator blocked, WP Food and drink, WP Law, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord, but given on 2021-12-12
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on Alcohol laws of New Jersey 2021-12-12, there is dated text and sourcing problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey
- Notified: no users with considerable edits,WP New Jersey, WP Rutgers, WP Higher education, WP Architecture, WP Historic Places, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on 2 July 2022, there are source-to-text integrity issues found in this article, similar to other FAs by the same nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, accelerated process - minimal checks uncovered many instances of failed verification, and two spots where the article contradicts the cited source. Given the history of the nominator, IMO this would need a clean FAC even if the needed WP:TNT occurred. Hog Farm Talk 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Leaning delist on this one. A citation-by-citation review will follow this post. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vami_IV could you let us know when you are done with the source examination? FARs are not typically segmented unless they get extremely long, and that sub-head can be removed once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll change the header to bold text as soon as I'm done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for all the work,Vami_IV; does not look good. Might you be interested in taking on another of the Henry's at Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Song for Simeon/archive1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll change the header to bold text as soon as I'm done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vami_IV could you let us know when you are done with the source examination? FARs are not typically segmented unless they get extremely long, and that sub-head can be removed once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist - Based on the issues raised by HF above and Vami below. There are also significant issues with this article aside from sourcing:
- This page would fail FA criterion 1b in my view. Considering that this is an article about a building, the page has remarkably little detail about its architecture, which seems to be mentioned only in passing ("Hardenbergh's design employs Renaissance elements with possible Dutch influence in the gables on the front and sides." and the use of brick are the only specific architectural details that are mentioned here).
- This page would fail FA criterion 1d as well. About half the article is about the Rutgers Geology Museum, even though the museum itself covers a small part of the building. This page should really be moved if that is indeed the focus of the article.
- There is an indiscriminate gallery of images at the bottom of the page. It's questionable whether this would have been allowed under FA criterion 3, and I'm not sure how the article was allowed to pass FAC with such a gallery.
- – Epicgenius (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, accelerated process (with an explanation for others). Typically, Keep or Delist are not entered in the FAR phase, but in the situation of a procedural FAR because of pervasive and similar issues found in other FAs by the same nominator, an accelerated process is considered. I do not believe the work to save this star is warranted (I might be persuaded if a very experienced FA writer asked to be given time to attempt a save, but I don't see that happening). Epicgenius's list of issues beyond sourcing is the final straw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Inspection of sources and citations by Vami Reviewed version.
- McCormick, Richard P. Rutgers: A Bicentennial History. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1966).
- [a] pp. 87–88: Supports half of the relevant sentence;
In 1864 the State of New Jersey named Rutgers College as their sole land grant college.
is not substantiated by this citation. - [b] ibid.: Also mostly checks out;
Cook was appointed state geologist in 1864 and later became the college's vice president.
is not substantiated (though p. 88 does say he was "For some years [Cook] had been carrying on the work of State Geologist under the sponsorship of the New Jersey Agricultural Society [...]."), nor isWith the college's land grant status and new funding for scientific studies, Cook expanded his research and teaching into geology and agriculture.
- [c] p. 101: Substantiated, except for
(in addition to Schanck Observatory)
; no mention whatever is made of any observatory on this page. - [d] ibid.: Substantiated.
- [e] ibid.: Substantiated, but the relevant sentence clumsily jumbles up the described contents of the Hall.
- [f] pp. 148, 157 : Substantiated.
- [g] p. 101: Substantiated, but... McCormick just describes the second floor thusly: "[...] and a large museum on the second floor."
- [a] pp. 87–88: Supports half of the relevant sentence;
- United States Code, Title 7, Chapter 13, Subchapter I, § 304
- Substantiated; but the citation of the law here feels totally unnecessary. Citation [1a] already mentions and describes the Morrill Act of 1862.
- David Murray (compiler). A Memorial of Rev. William Henry Campbell, D.D., LL.D. Late President of Rutgers College. (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Trustees of Rutgers College, 1894).
- [a] pp. 45–47: Almost none of the relevant sentences are substantiated by this citation. The relevant page is p. 45, which also omits the date of Cook's appointment as State Geologist.
- [b] ibid.: Substantiated. Also mentions the Schanck Observatory, unlike [1c].
- [c] ibid.: Substantiated. That sum, down to the last dime and nickel, is lifted out of [3c].
- Rutgers College and Raven, John Howard (Rev.) (compiler). Catalogue of the Officers and Alumni of Rutgers College (originally Queen's College) in New Brunswick, N.J., 1766–1916. (Trenton, New Jersey: State Gazette Publishing Company, 1916).
- [a] p. 47: Totally unsubstantiated.
- [b] p. 37: Totally unsubstantiated.
- Glovin, Bill. "Castles in the Air" in Rutgers Magazine (Spring 2006), 35–41.
- I cannot find this source. That does not inspire confidence in me, but a Google search revealed Bill Glovin to be a real person who did once edit Rutgers Magazine.
- Staff. "H. J. Hardenberg, Architect, is Dead" in The New York Times (March 14, 1918).
- Substantiated, except for
[...] and his grandfather, Rev. Jacob Janeway served as vice president of the college and had turned down the post of president in 1840.
- Substantiated, except for
- Barr, Michael C. and Wilkens, Edward. National Register of Historic Places Inventory Nomination Form for Queen's Campus at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (1973).
- [a]: OR bupkis. The NRHP document says that Hardenbergh worked in a "Dutch Renaissance" style in his hotels, and describes Geology Hall as "[employing] both Gothic elements and classical forms."
- [b]: Substantiated.
- [c]: Substantiated.
- Hawes, George W., et al. for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Office. "Report on Building stones of the United States and Statistics of the Quarry Industry for 1880" from Final Report on the Tenth Census, Volume 10. (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1884), 310.
- I cannot find this source. And surely there must be a better, newer source for the mere fact that this building was built of stone (like the NRHP document).
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – Rutgers University Libraries. "Paths to Historic Rutgers: A Self-Guided Tour" from the Special Collections and University Archives: University Archives.
- Substantiated.
- Robbins, Allen B. History of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1771–2000. (Baltimore, Maryland: Gateway Press, 2001), 56, 76.
- Another one I can't access.
- Olsson, Richard. "History of EPS: A Brief History Of Geology At Rutgers, 1830–1980": Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (official website).
- Unsubstantiated.
- The Queen's Campus (total of 6 buildings and grounds) is listed as SHPO ID# 1881, and NRHP Reference #73001113. See: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) – Historic Preservation Office. New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places – Middlesex County.
- Unsubstantiated.
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – Rutgers Geology Museum. "About the Museum".
- [a]: Substantiated.
- [b]: Unsubstantiated.
- Citation [14] does not support any of the text it is attached to, and is rather obese, to boot (two URLs).
- Kaado, Jad. "Rutgers Geology Museum May Close After 141 Years: Rumor Has it Museum Will Be Converted to Auditorium" in New Brunswick Today (February 1, 2013).
- [a]: Substantiated.
From here on, I have no further comment. Some very large holes have already been blown in #Rutgers Geology Museum by comparison of the text to its nominal sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Bam Thwok
- Notified: CloudNine, WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Alternative Music, WikiProject Alternative Music, WikiProject Women in Music, May 24, 2022
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has two unresolved sourcing issues (permanently dead link and uncited text) and weasel words that make an unsupported claim about the relationship between two living people. I fixed some issues with the article half a year ago, but these are the ones that I couldn't find any citations for. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ulm campaign
- Notified: UberCryxic,
Snagemit, The Exterminating Angel,WP MilHist, WP Germany, talk page notice 2021-12-01
This very old Featured article has considerable uncited text. Top editors are either relatively inactive, or blocked; one is blocked for disruptive editing, so edits should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Hurricane Irene (1999)
- Notified: Hurricanehink, 12george1, Titoxd, Feminist, Juliancolton, WP Tropical cyclones, WP Weather, WP USA, noticed 2022-04-30
This 2006 promotion has some sourcing issues - on talk back in April I listed several academic sources brought up by quick searching, and Hurricane Noah has also suggested that this is lacking in academic coverage. Additionally, a few of the sources are questionable as to if they are solid enough for modern FA sourcing (see talk for details). Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Sarah Trimmer
- WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject England, WikiProject Women writers, 2021-03-03 2022-06-23
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are various statements in the article that are missing citations and may contain original research. I would also like the statement at the top of the Bibliography section to be reevaluated, as possibly removed. The primary author of this article is deceased, and there is not another editor with significant contributions. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- The maintenance tags have been addressed. I removed the OR at the top of the Bibliography section. I don't know how we are going to find someone to opine whether all original research has been excised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Nancy Reagan
- Notified: User talk:Happyme22, User talk:Wasted Time R, all wikiprojects on talk page, diff for talk page notification
I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography." Another issue I noticed is POV issues such as "Although the bill was criticized", and where characterization of Just Say No program as ineffective is attributed to "critics" and not mentioned in the lead. However, the (in)effectiveness of the program has been empirically measured. This is a widely viewed article so I hope someone will step up to improve it. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Palladian architecture
- Notified: Bishonen, Conte Giacomo, Wetman, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2021-03-07, 2022-05-30
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous statements and paragraphs that are missing inline citations. Also, the "North American Palladianism" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't this have been notified to the article talk? Yes, it should. User:Z1720, please handle. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I added the feature article review template to the top of this article's talk page with this edit. Is this what is meant by "notified to the article talk"? If not, which step at WP:FAR was missed when I made this nomination? Z1720 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously? If people miss that from their watchlist, who ever sees those? I certainly hadn't. Your previous post on talk there concluded "... If no one addresses the above soon, it might be submitted to WP:FAR. Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)". You didn't think that should at least be updated?? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I'm going to ping @WP:FAR coordinators: in this discussion. Hog Farm notified the article in March 2021 (aka step 1 of WP:FAR's instructions) and the article was placed on WP:FARGIVEN. I felt that I gave a second notice with this comment on the article talk page in May 2022 (I put the wrong year at the top, which I have now corrected) and indicated as such on FARGIVEN with this edit. Typically, step 1 of an FAR does not require a notification to editor's talk pages. Is there anyone else that could have been done to make this clearer? Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you say, Hog Farm very properly notified article talk, to which section you added a month ago. But you did not update that section when you recently actually began the FAR. So, yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: Per step 2 of WP:FAR, I added the FAR template to the top of the article talk page with this edit. The instructions do not require additional notices on the article's talk page. Nevertheless, I have added a notice with this edit. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you say, Hog Farm very properly notified article talk, to which section you added a month ago. But you did not update that section when you recently actually began the FAR. So, yes. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I'm going to ping @WP:FAR coordinators: in this discussion. Hog Farm notified the article in March 2021 (aka step 1 of WP:FAR's instructions) and the article was placed on WP:FARGIVEN. I felt that I gave a second notice with this comment on the article talk page in May 2022 (I put the wrong year at the top, which I have now corrected) and indicated as such on FARGIVEN with this edit. Typically, step 1 of an FAR does not require a notification to editor's talk pages. Is there anyone else that could have been done to make this clearer? Z1720 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously? If people miss that from their watchlist, who ever sees those? I certainly hadn't. Your previous post on talk there concluded "... If no one addresses the above soon, it might be submitted to WP:FAR. Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)". You didn't think that should at least be updated?? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Z1720 - We’ve moved from 38 citations (12 June) to 108 (and rising), and increased the number of book sources from 16 to 37. Every paragraph is now cited, I think! Where I couldn’t source a statement, e.g. Palladian adaptations to suit Northern European climates, I’ve removed it. I’ve also tried to standardise the referencing - although I may not of caught absolutely everything as I’ve been working with a referencing style that I’m not really comfortable with, far preferring {{sfn}}; added ISBNs/OCLCs, and split the footnotes from the references. While there’s certainly more that could be done, can you/the coordinators let me know if this is sufficient to take the article off the FAR list. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps anything removed as unsourced could be noted on the talk page, in case sources can be found. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note re moving to FARC: Following KJP1's recent very impressive citation and content expansions, which I closely and happily followed, this is clearly about there. Without wanting to inhibit KJP1's parade, bravo. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ceoil - Not at all! It’s good to see you and your support, here and at the article, is greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fine man, I only meant to commend, there is abvs a lot more that could be added. Its fascinating stuff, although it get as a bit boring when you talk about the American follies. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ceoil - Not at all! It’s good to see you and your support, here and at the article, is greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- All though its a clear pass from me. Ceoil (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note re moving to FARC: Following KJP1's recent very impressive citation and content expansions, which I closely and happily followed, this is clearly about there. Without wanting to inhibit KJP1's parade, bravo. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
A brief look only:
There are sources listed that are unused as citations (I see mention above of moving to sfns, which would detect issues like this, and I would support a move to sfn citation formatting)External links might benefit from pruning.Is the 16-year-old Spoken Wikipedia link still useful, or should it be moved to article talk?I checked one paragraph and found unverified text.Checking only a very few citations, I found other failed verifications (perhaps I missed something?), suggesting there may be more and a source-to-text integrity check is needed on sources that are not available online. I see several statements that look like editorializing or original research (sources not available online) and could be flagged with "request quote" for checking, but will wait to see how others want to proceed.Citations need attention; accessdates are needed on webpages, what is the style used on page nos (most are p.X but some use p. X).- You can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to check for duplicate wikilinks;
this article has the most duplication I have ever encountered since I installed the script.- Not so ... someone has fiddled with the duplinks tool, and it is duplicating the lead. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Work is still needed to bring this to current standards, some is minor and easily fixed, but source-to-text checking is significant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy, I doubt there is any original research. It is hard to imagine a less original, and more banal statement than: "At the forefront[failed verification] of the new school of design was the aristocratic "architect earl", Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington", which you have tagged. Any book on the subject will have pages on him; I will add the relevant ones from:
- Cruikshank, Dan, Georgian Buildings, 1985, Weidenfeld and Nicolson (with the National Trust and Irish Georgian Society), ISBN 0297786105 and
- Summerson, John, Architecture in Britain, 1530-1830, 1991 (8th edn., revised), Penguin, Pelican history of art, ISBN 0140560033
-though probably not in the right format. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see you have already addressed some; can these be checked or quotes provided ? (Will add to list as I read over time ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Uncited:
The Baroque style, popular in continental Europe, was never truly to the English taste and was considered excessively flamboyant, Catholic and 'florid'. It was quickly superseded when, in the first quarter of the 18th century, four books were published ... :SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Uncited:
- PS, I will address citation formatting if a style is specified. As I said above, sfns might be useful here, and I see KJP1 also prefers to work with them. The dup links are more work than I want to take on, and I don't know which external links to prune. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy - this is really helpful. Re. the sourcing, I have all the offline sources I’ve added, and some but not all of those that were already there. So I can certainly go through any you highlight to add quotes, etc. in order to support verification. I could also check them - although that would be a bit like checking my own homework! I think the issue may be that many of the offline books won’t be easily available to most editors, although Johnbod will likely have some. Re. the citation formatting, page no.s etc, I can also check/revise these, but it will be the weekend before I can get to it in detail. On the issue of referencing, I would also personally favour a move to sfn and I think this would help address many of the issues you identify, including the above and the Sources containing items that aren’t used etc. I would be pleased to undertake this. But I am conscious that not all editors like it, including, I suspect, the editor who wrote much of the article initially. So I’d be reluctant to push it, unless we have a consensus here to do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can see the sources I have to hand at User:Johnbod#Architecture. Largely different from those used, but covering similar ground, & especially strong on individual UK buildings (but weaker on actual Palladio buildings in Italy). I personally can't use sfn (or at least initiate a source with it), but .... Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think you'll actually get any pushback on sfns ... on other FARs, involving Bish/Giano, I don't recall seeing a problem ... could be wrong ... I'm not questioning your sourcing (hadn't checked who did what, and not aware of what was older sourcing vs. current) ... when I get around to a full read-through, I'll highlight here anything that worries me ... thanks for bringing this over the line! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- If my memory serves, we did flip to sfn when Sicilian Baroque was at FAR. If people are content, I’m very happy to pick this up but it won’t be till the weekend, I’m afraid. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I want to note that I have seen the above ping to check this, but I have been very busy in real life the past few weeks. I see that Sandy has contributed comments so I don't want to add things until that is resolved. I'm going to continue following the improvements and if I have time I will contribute suggestions when everything above has been resolved. I am sorry that I have not been more actively involved the past few weeks but I look forward to reading this article again. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Z1720 Not to worry; KJP1 has things under control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I want to note that I have seen the above ping to check this, but I have been very busy in real life the past few weeks. I see that Sandy has contributed comments so I don't want to add things until that is resolved. I'm going to continue following the improvements and if I have time I will contribute suggestions when everything above has been resolved. I am sorry that I have not been more actively involved the past few weeks but I look forward to reading this article again. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If my memory serves, we did flip to sfn when Sicilian Baroque was at FAR. If people are content, I’m very happy to pick this up but it won’t be till the weekend, I’m afraid. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy - this is really helpful. Re. the sourcing, I have all the offline sources I’ve added, and some but not all of those that were already there. So I can certainly go through any you highlight to add quotes, etc. in order to support verification. I could also check them - although that would be a bit like checking my own homework! I think the issue may be that many of the offline books won’t be easily available to most editors, although Johnbod will likely have some. Re. the citation formatting, page no.s etc, I can also check/revise these, but it will be the weekend before I can get to it in detail. On the issue of referencing, I would also personally favour a move to sfn and I think this would help address many of the issues you identify, including the above and the Sources containing items that aren’t used etc. I would be pleased to undertake this. But I am conscious that not all editors like it, including, I suspect, the editor who wrote much of the article initially. So I’d be reluctant to push it, unless we have a consensus here to do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Sandy - where I'm at:
- Whole article sfn'd, I think!
- Page numbering standardised as p=x;
- Books not used removed from Sources, I think!
- Books used moved from Further reading to Sources;
- ISBNs standardised on 13-digits;
- Access-dates added to online citations;
- External links pruned, as is Further reading section;
- Some citations added where appropriate.
I'm struggling to get the duplinks tool running, so have asked Eva for advice. Can you do a readthrough when you have time and flag those areas where you have source-to-text concerns, and anything else you think needs attention. I can then go back through the books and look to sort them. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking in bits and pieces first ... will so a solid read-through later. The dup link tool appears to not work the first time you click it; sometimes you have to click more than once.
- Who is Paul Clerkin of archiseek.com wrt WP:SPS ?
- Same for Terence Dooley, as this is a blog. Need to establish credentials per WP:SPS. Also, who is "cshise" (need to establish no copyright violation) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I repeated these queries at bottom of FAR so they don't get lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Same for Terence Dooley, as this is a blog. Need to establish credentials per WP:SPS. Also, who is "cshise" (need to establish no copyright violation) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There are still a lot of unused sources in the source list,which show up with the harvref checker tool; do you have that installed? Or should I just delete those for you ?Why is a snfref definition added after some sources?It's not needed unless there are duplicate sources for the same author/year, for example. Sample here. It's not a problem, as the citations render correctly, but if we want more people to use sfns, we should make it easy :)
- Who is Paul Clerkin of archiseek.com wrt WP:SPS ?
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I only use them where there’s more than one author. I find, if you don’t, then they don’t display when you hover over them. But it could well be something I’m doing wrong. Perhaps User:Hog Farm can help? KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @KJP1: - After this edit, clicking on a Guinness & Sadler source is taking me to the short citation (not the main one), but trying with Wundram & Pape which still has the sfnref present does the same behavior ... why multiple author sfns behave different than single author sfns is one of the few things I've never been able to figure out. The sfnrefs are putting the article in Category:CS1 maint: ref duplicates default which isn't an issue in itself, but means that it's more likely for a AWB drone or CitationBot to show up and remove them at some point. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I only use them where there’s more than one author. I find, if you don’t, then they don’t display when you hover over them. But it could well be something I’m doing wrong. Perhaps User:Hog Farm can help? KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS, should you get the dupe link tool working, I am not an advocate of one-link-only per article, but there are still some that aren't needed. Judgement is needed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- KJP1, it seems that someone may have fiddled with the duplinks tool; it is not working correctly. Checking now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, duplinks has a glitch, reported by several editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There are templates in use in the article for citations that have faulty (and contradictory) formatting. Have to go out, will detail later, reminder to self.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- I can help with sfn formatting, as I've pretty much only ever used sfns and can speak (most) of that language. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the snfs are all done (except for removing those not used, but I want to wait for KJP1 on those). There is some faulty/inconsistent citation formatting coming from the use of the canned templates, {{NHLE}} and {{CRHP}}; rather than deal with trying to get those fixed, maybe I'll just hand format all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy - that would be great, and if you could also zap out the books in the Sources that aren’t actually used. I thought I’d caught them all but obviously not. Then we can have a look at any text-source concerns, and I’ll have a look at those Sources you were concerned aren’t RS. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I will hand format the templated sources, and for now, will move the unused sources to Further reading. From there, I'll let you decide if they should be completely deleted, or kept as Further ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Moved unused sources, will work on other formatting issues later today ... gives you a chance to review what is now in Further reading ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy - that would be great, and if you could also zap out the books in the Sources that aren’t actually used. I thought I’d caught them all but obviously not. Then we can have a look at any text-source concerns, and I’ll have a look at those Sources you were concerned aren’t RS. KJP1 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the snfs are all done (except for removing those not used, but I want to wait for KJP1 on those). There is some faulty/inconsistent citation formatting coming from the use of the canned templates, {{NHLE}} and {{CRHP}}; rather than deal with trying to get those fixed, maybe I'll just hand format all of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can help with sfn formatting, as I've pretty much only ever used sfns and can speak (most) of that language. Hog Farm Talk 15:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@DrKay and Hog Farm: do you know what is causing these errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hidden categories: CS1: Julian–Gregorian uncertainty
- Pages using sfn with unknown parameters
- Sooo easy, sfn, as people are always telling me! Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- fixed, the p= parameter is case sensitive (although IMO it shouldn't be). Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That’s from editing on the bloody iPad, which insists on capitalising, even when you don’t ask it to. Thanks for sorting it. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I know the particular pain of which you speak and empathize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That’s from editing on the bloody iPad, which insists on capitalising, even when you don’t ask it to. Thanks for sorting it. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- fixed, the p= parameter is case sensitive (although IMO it shouldn't be). Hog Farm Talk 17:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sooo easy, sfn, as people are always telling me! Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Remaining to look at: temporary break
With the exception of reviewing Further reading, I believe most of citation formatting cleanup is done now. Bringing down (repeating) two queries from above, so they don't get lost ...
Who is Paul Clerkin of https://www.archiseek.com/ wrt WP:SPS ?- Regarding the value of archiseek.com as a source, I found 'archiseek' gets 196 hits on Google Scholar, though the links it receives are not all from reliable sources. If you ask Google Scholar to look for 'archiseek JSTOR' you get 16 hits indicating that scholarly writers are using it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- But per WP:SPS, we would need to establish something specific to the author, Paul Clerkin, I believe. I can't access all of those Jstor sources to determine what or whom they are citing from archiseek. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the value of archiseek.com as a source, I found 'archiseek' gets 196 hits on Google Scholar, though the links it receives are not all from reliable sources. If you ask Google Scholar to look for 'archiseek JSTOR' you get 16 hits indicating that scholarly writers are using it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Archiseek is a personal blog/labour of love, but it is both good and reputable. And it is one of the “go-to” sources for anyone researching Irish architecture. But it may not meet RS, so I’ve replaced the two citations that use it. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Archiseek is a personal blog/labour of love, but it is both good and reputable. And it is one of the “go-to” sources for anyone researching Irish architecture. But it may not meet RS, so I’ve replaced the two citations that use it. KJP1 (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Same for Terence Dooley, as this is a blog. Need to establish credentials per WP:SPS.Also, who is "cshise" (need to establish no copyright violation from the unknown schise of Terence Dooley) ?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dooley is a blog and is published on Wordpress which is a bit of a red flag. But it is also highly reputable. “cshise” is the Centre for the Study of Historic Irish Houses and Estates, which is sponsored by Maynooth University, so we’re okay on copyvio, I think. Worcester College, Oxford also publishes its Inigo Jones collection on Wordpress, [2] so they’re in good company! I could take it out, but I’d need to find another source for the 20th century decline of Irish houses. What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am just now catching up, and see that you removed it. I was more comfortable with the source once I understood what cshise referred to (d'oh!), and that is wasn't a random contributor copyvio! Struck anyway, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed - by removal. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dooley is a blog and is published on Wordpress which is a bit of a red flag. But it is also highly reputable. “cshise” is the Centre for the Study of Historic Irish Houses and Estates, which is sponsored by Maynooth University, so we’re okay on copyvio, I think. Worcester College, Oxford also publishes its Inigo Jones collection on Wordpress, [2] so they’re in good company! I could take it out, but I’d need to find another source for the 20th century decline of Irish houses. What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Check throughout for similar to these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
... can be definitively attributed to designs from I quattro libri dell'architettura are architect William Buckland's Hammond-Harwood House (1774) in Annapolis, Maryland and Thomas Jefferson's first Monticello.Sometimes date of a work is given in parens, sometimes not, but if that is done throughout, seems it should be on first occurrence?SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
The design source for the Hammond-Harwood House (see above) is Villa Pisani, and for the first Monticello (1770), the Villa Cornaro at Piombino Dese (Book II, Chapter XIV).Avoid sending the reader to unknown places in the text (see above)... instead, considering an internal link to the section referred to, or just remove the "See above"?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the BookII, Chapter referring to here ?"and for the first Monticello (1770), the Villa Cornaro at Piombino Dese (Book II, Chapter XIV)." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is referring to Palladio’s Four Books, i.e. it’s saying which of the book chapters the design is taken from. Does it need to be clearer? KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I eventually figured that out, by backtracking to another instance. I am turning in for the night now; if you aren't able to find a way to explain it briefly there, maybe I will think of something in the morning. Will finish striking and reviewing tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've had a re-work of this section. It struck me that discussion of the Hammond-Harwood House and Monticello occured in two places - the second and third paragraphs and the seventh. I've therefore grouped it all together in the second para. I hope it reads more easily.KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've had a re-work of this section. It struck me that discussion of the Hammond-Harwood House and Monticello occured in two places - the second and third paragraphs and the seventh. I've therefore grouped it all together in the second para. I hope it reads more easily.KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I eventually figured that out, by backtracking to another instance. I am turning in for the night now; if you aren't able to find a way to explain it briefly there, maybe I will think of something in the morning. Will finish striking and reviewing tomorrow ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is referring to Palladio’s Four Books, i.e. it’s saying which of the book chapters the design is taken from. Does it need to be clearer? KJP1 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
... built in 1758–62. See MOS:DATERANGE, should be 1758–1762, and check throughout. I would fix it myself, but is it intended to be "built between 1758 and 1762"? Not sure the current construct works ...SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Missing publisher at Nichols, Frederick Nichols (1984). Thomas Jefferson's Architectural Drawings. Boston, US: ????. ISBN 9780813903286.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Why though; not seeing a contradiction. "Palladio's influence in North America[n 11] is evident almost from the beginning of architect-designed building there, though the Irish philosopher George Berkeley may have been America's pioneering Palladian. "SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed. KJP1 (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:MSH, we should not have "The": The Venetian and Palladian windowsSandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Everything above is addressed; KJP1, is there more you want/intend to do, or are we ready for a full read-through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great. I’ll stop fiddling, you have a read-through and flag anything that concerns re. sourcing/verifiability etc. I can then go back through the texts to look to sort any issues out. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hope to get to it later today, after breakfast and thorough caffeination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- p.s. User:Ceoil kindly went through the duplinks. Is the Eva tool working again to check they were all caught? KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- It still has a glitch, so one has to ignore the top part, and move on down ... I don't see a duplink problem anymore, but I'm not a fan of the "one-link-only" practice, so if you see a place where terms are sufficiently separated from their first link, and feel the need to reinstate any, that would be OK I think ... I fear my initial over-reaction to the glitching script may have led Ceoil to remove more than he normally might ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS, I have an unexpected dinner guest on the way, so may not get to this today. Maybe Z1720 or Hog Farm will also be able to revisit in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've got three other articles I'm committed to review so it'll probably be Wednesday before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get there sooner than that, so not to worry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've got three other articles I'm committed to review so it'll probably be Wednesday before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- p.s. User:Ceoil kindly went through the duplinks. Is the Eva tool working again to check they were all caught? KJP1 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hope to get to it later today, after breakfast and thorough caffeination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Continuing
Lead:
- Should perspective in the lead be linked to Perspective (graphical) ?
- Would this work?
- From the 17th century Palladio's interpretation of this classical architecture was adapted as the style known as "Palladianism". It continued to develop until the end of the 18th century. -->
- In the 17th century and 18th centuries, Palladio's interpretation of this classical architecture developed into the style known as Palladianism. (Words as words needs italics.)
- From the 17th century Palladio's interpretation of this classical architecture was adapted as the style known as "Palladianism". It continued to develop until the end of the 18th century. -->
- Can this be broken up ? Count Francesco Algarotti may have written to Lord Burlington from Berlin that he was recommending to Frederick the Great the adoption in Prussia of the architectural style Burlington had introduced in England, but Knobelsdorff's opera house on the Unter den Linden boulevard, based on Campbell's Wanstead House, had been constructed from 1741.
- Would this work (avoid utilized ... employed ... and redundancy )
- The style continued to be utilized in Europe throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, where it was frequently employed for public and municipal buildings. -->
- The style was frequently employed for public and municipal buildings in Europe throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
- The style continued to be utilized in Europe throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, where it was frequently employed for public and municipal buildings. -->
- How about ?
- By the latter half of the 19th century it was rivalled by the Gothic revival in the English-speaking world, when champions such as Augustus Pugin, remembering the origins of Palladianism in ancient temples, deemed it too pagan for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship. -->
- By the latter half of the 19th century the Gothic revival in the English-speaking world, and champions such as Augustus Pugin, remembered the origins of Palladianism in ancient temples and deemed it too pagan for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship.
- By the latter half of the 19th century it was rivalled by the Gothic revival in the English-speaking world, when champions such as Augustus Pugin, remembering the origins of Palladianism in ancient temples, deemed it too pagan for Anglican and Anglo-Catholic worship. -->
- Redundancy? As an architectural style it has continued to evolve; its pediments, symmetry and proportions are
clearlyevident in the design of many modern buildingstoday.
Image captions:
Some standardization of format in image captions might provide more consistency ... see samples below ... differing punctuation and style used.
- Can this be more succinct? MOS:CAPTION. Claydon House is never mentioned in the text, so could some of the lengthy caption be moved to text?
- Claydon House in Buckinghamshire (begun 1757); here the Venetian window in the central bay is surrounded by a unifying blind arch. This house was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was have since been demolished.
- The Veneitan windows of Claydon House in Buckinghamshire (begun 1757) in the central bay surrounded by a unifying blind arch
- Move this part to text and expand as needed? This house was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was have since been demolished.
- Claydon House in Buckinghamshire (begun 1757); here the Venetian window in the central bay is surrounded by a unifying blind arch. This house was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was have since been demolished.
- Can the usage of dates be standardized throughout the article? Eg, change this to match the others (in parens)? Also, first English Palladian House might be moved to the body (and it is uncited).
- Inigo Jones was the designer of the Queen's House, Greenwich, begun in 1616, the first English Palladian house.
- Inigo Jones was the designer of the Queen's House, Greenwich (begun in 1616). Move first English to body, and cite it
- Inigo Jones was the designer of the Queen's House, Greenwich, begun in 1616, the first English Palladian house.
- Most of the captions use colons, but this one switches to a dash (suggesting text built by different editors -- standardize)??
- The south front of Holkham Hall – The four flanking wings are elevated, in height and importance, almost to the status of the central block.
- Woburn Abbey, designed by Burlington's student Henry Flitcroft in 1746. Palladio's central temple is no longer free standing, the wings are now elevated to near equal importance, and the cattle sheds terminating Palladio's design are now
clearlypart of the façade. - I speak rudimentary Italian, so am not lost, but another reader might enjoy more consistency. Sometimes we refer to the full book name, sometimes it is shortened to I quattro libri, and yet here, we use the English translation ... standardize for consistency to one or the other?
- The Hammond-Harwood House was modeled after the Villa Pisani at Montagnana from The Four Books of Architecture by Andrea Palladio.
- Continuing with same, the remaining image captions sometimes include dates in text, and other times in parens.
- Not mentioned in text, hence, not cited: Henbury Hall, Cheshire, built in 1986 and modelled on the Villa Capra
Palladio's architecture
- This seems an odd way to introduce the section ... can we say what it is, before we say where it is? And this paragraph is dealing with two different subject; unclear why this would be the topic sentence there, and it seems a whole 'nother para could be built around what is stated in the UNESCO source. I can't see where (may have missed it?) the citation says that all are in those locales. Based on what the source says, I can see the importance of Vicenza and the Veneto, but we don't explain most of what is in that source to establish the importance of the region. For the reader unfamiliar with Italy, it might help to add the word region after the Veneto. Possibly also add the "city of" Vicenza (most readers should recognize Venice as a city, but may not know the Veneto/Vicenza).
- Buildings entirely designed by Palladio are all in Venice and the Veneto, with an especially rich grouping of palazzi in Vicenza.[1Buildings entirely designed by Palladio are all in Venice and the Veneto, with an especially rich grouping of palazzi in Vicenza.
- Typo? This is most simply be described as a recessed portico, or a ...
- Redundant? would be placed at second floor level over the top of a loggia
below - Villa Godi has as its focal point a loggia rather than a portico, plus loggias terminating each end of the main building. --> ?? -->> Villa Godi's focal point is a loggia rather than a portico, with additional loggias terminating each end of the main building ??
- The colon here leads the reader to expect the three elements will be laid out in the sentence after the colon:
- Palladian villas are usually built with three floors: a rusticated basement or ground floor, containing the service and minor rooms.
- Italics on piano nobile as a foreign phrase, not a proper noun. Translation to English should be supplied in whatever format is standard for the article (Italian first, followed by English in parens, or whatever is used elsewhere)
- Then the next (not a sentence) continues listing the three elements ... punctuation and grammatical issue here needs sorting.
- Above this, the piano nobile accessed through a portico reached by a flight of external steps, containing the principal reception and bedrooms, and above it is a low mezzanine floor with secondary bedrooms and accommodation.
- This passage assumes a lot of the reader: ratio of what to what, and interrelated how?
- The proportions of each room within the villa were calculated on simple mathematical ratios like 3:4 and 4:5, and the different rooms within the house were interrelated by these ratios.
- Once those are better defined, then this might be more understandable ...
- Earlier architects had used these formulas for balancing a single symmetrical facade; however, Palladio's designs related to the whole, usually square, villa.
- They were, however, in no way intended to be part of the main house, and it is the design and use of these wings that Palladio's followers in the 18th century adapted to become an integral part of the building. --> ?? --> Palladio did not intend for them to be part of the main house; his 18th-century followers adapted the design and use of these wings to become an integral part of the building.
Stopping there for now to see if I'm on the wrong track. Suggestions only, prose is not my strength, no need to strike and address each point (a summary suffices). I'll continue tomorrow, if any of this is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Have recast the Lead, and the first, Palladio's architecture, section in line with the above, very helpful, comments. Not got to the Image comments yet. The piece that needs a bit more thinking about is how to simply explain Palladio's use of mathematical ratios and harmonic proportion. Not easy concepts to summarise! KJP1 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Got it ... if you find these sorts of comments helpful, let me know when I should continue ... lots to do elsewhere for now and don't want to overwhelm here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy - It’s very helpful to get another perspective. I’ve read it so many times while hunting out cites, I can overlook the obvious. Carry on with your read-through in your own time, and drop any comments/concerns here. I’ll then pick them up, although it may be the weekend as the working week’s busy just now. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can this sentence be split?
- Its adoption in Prussia drew directly on English inspirations: Francesco Algarotti corresponded with Burlington about his efforts to persuade Frederick the Great of the merits of the style, and Knobelsdorff's opera house on the Unter den Linden boulevard, begun in 1741, was based on Colen Campbell's Wanstead House outside London, one of the first, and among the most influential, of Campbell's Palladian designs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- On the ratio issue, just specifying what dimensions the ratios refer to would help (width, length, height?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Venetian and Palladian windows
I got lost in most of this:
- Palladian, Serlian, or Venetian windows feature largely in Palladio's work and are almost a trademark of his early career. There are two different versions of the motif: properly the simpler one is called a Venetian window, and a more elaborate and specific one a Palladian window or "Palladian motif", although this distinction is not always observed.
So I read this source.
- This is the first occurrence of the word Serlian. Only by reading the source did I eventually figure out that Serlian must refer to the architect Serlio (who I then found mentioned in the next paragraph, and then again in the fourth paragraph); can the flow/organization of the narrative be somehow adjusted to make the connection more understandable wherever the term is first used?
- Why the almost a trademark? I couldn't find anything in the source that spoke to that.
- Simple= Venetian, more elaborate= Palladian, but what does the word specific refer to? I couldn't find anything in the source that spoke to this to help me understand this distinction.
So at a loss on the whole paragraph.
- I count more than three here, so unclear how the elements are being divided: The Venetian window has three parts: a central high round-arched opening, with two smaller rectangular openings to the sides, the latter topped by lintels and supported by columns.
- Redundant? This was
in factintroduced ... - Heavily used .. where it is used ...redundant? heavily used by Palladio in the Basilica Palladiana in Vicenza,[22] where it is used
- First introduction to a person named Kent ... at this point we haven't been told who he is ??? Kent picked it up in his designs for the Houses of Parliament, and it appears in Kent's executed designs for the north front of Holkham Hall.
- Can this be disentangled?
- Another example is Claydon House, in Buckinghamshire, the remaining fragment being one wing of what was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was built have since been demolished. -->
- Another example is Claydon House, in Buckinghamshire; the remaining fragment is one wing of what was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house. The scheme was never completed and parts of what was built have since been demolished.
- Another example is Claydon House, in Buckinghamshire, the remaining fragment being one wing of what was intended to be one of two flanking wings to a vast Palladian house; the scheme was never completed and parts of what was built have since been demolished. -->
Done with that section, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Early Palladianism
- The earliest neo-Palladians there were the exact contemporaries, both trained up as masons, Domenico Rossi (1657–1737)[n 4] and Andrea Tirali (1657–1737). I had to go forward than backward to understand what was meant with exact (revealed in their birth and death dates), and once my brain did that extra work, I wondered why we need the word exact at all, since its redundant to the dates. It just makes extra work for the reader. Or it might be less stumbly if the pieces were reorganized so the dates would be encountered first. Maybe --> ??
- Domenico Rossi (1657–1737)[n 4] and Andrea Tirali (1657–1737), exact contemporaries and both trained as masons, were the earliest neo-Palladians there.
- There is no contradiction here ... The most influential follower of Palladio anywhere
, however,was the Englishman Inigo Jones, (Overuse of however and User:John/however) - Art collector ... unclear why Collector is capitalized? with the 'Collector' Earl of Arundel,
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
English Palladian architecture
- I can't decipher who these two are from the surrounding text: The two living authors became the most fashionable and sought after architects of the era.
- Wonky commas or something missing? In 1729, he and William Kent, designed Chiswick House. ... drop Kent, already defined above ?
- Inconsistent use of commas ... sometimes there is a comma after dates (see 1729 sample above) sometimes not ... resolve throghout? In 1734 Kent and Burlington designed one of England's finest examples of Palladian architecture with Holkham Hall in Norfolk. ... Does this need attribution? Finest example according to someone?
- Citation, attribution, or both ? Flitcroft's designs, while Palladian in nature, would not be recognised by Palladio himself. Everything from there, up to "are seen as of Palladian design" seems to be cited to an image only, unless I am not accessing the source correctly.
- In this section, I'm not seeing anything verified by sources 70 or 72; it's as if I'm looking at the wrong source, not finding any of the content verified.
Also, source 72 mentions Calcutta,[3] which leads to this journal source (also here via Proquest) discussing Palladio in India. Has a search been done to be sure the article is comprehensive, as it now covers only English, Irish, North American and Prussian ... no mention of India, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery
- Notified: Johnbod, Z1720,Bishonen, Buidhe, Fannybriceii, Giano, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women in Green, 2022-03-23, 2022-04-28
I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can see one - I can't see "several". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well ... that's after I spent an hour excising a few, and I'm less than halfway through the McKinstry cites; if you've already found one I missed, fair enough. I have two others of the books used in the references on order from my local library.
But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [4] [5] [6] [7] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well ... that's after I spent an hour excising a few, and I'm less than halfway through the McKinstry cites; if you've already found one I missed, fair enough. I have two others of the books used in the references on order from my local library.
Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [8] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent the last couple of hours restoring a little of the information which has been wrongly removed by Ravenswing. I own all the books mentioned in the references, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours reverting all his edits. There is nothing in the original page which isn't sourced or able to be sourced, but if Ravenswing doesn't stop his vandalism there will be little left to read. Perhaps that's his intention? This is a very strange nomination. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- You really do seem to have an ownership problem with this article, don't you? First it's accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny on the talk page, and now this. The changes I made in the article were removing statements unsourced by the listed citations, or ones that were uncited in the first place. You should have spent the time to do your work properly in the first place for a FA article; if you claim you lack the time now to clean up your own errors, well, you're the best judge of your own time. But the sheer hysteria you're displaying (a byte count shows that I removed less than a twentieth of the content) is unbecoming. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please take any further personal commentary to someone's talk page rather than here - this kind of back-and-forth isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- You really do seem to have an ownership problem with this article, don't you? First it's accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny on the talk page, and now this. The changes I made in the article were removing statements unsourced by the listed citations, or ones that were uncited in the first place. You should have spent the time to do your work properly in the first place for a FA article; if you claim you lack the time now to clean up your own errors, well, you're the best judge of your own time. But the sheer hysteria you're displaying (a byte count shows that I removed less than a twentieth of the content) is unbecoming. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have spent the last couple of hours restoring a little of the information which has been wrongly removed by Ravenswing. I own all the books mentioned in the references, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours reverting all his edits. There is nothing in the original page which isn't sourced or able to be sourced, but if Ravenswing doesn't stop his vandalism there will be little left to read. Perhaps that's his intention? This is a very strange nomination. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Giano for making improvements on this article at the end of May. There are still a lot of statements that do not have references. Are you continuing to work on this article? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- At this point, I call for the article to be listed as a Featured article removal candidate. I posted this here over three weeks ago, and short of Giano filling in some references, my concerns set forth in the initial listing have not been addressed, save for ad hominen attacks by Giano for "vandalism" and "anti-semitism." I maintain that this article is long on speculation, innuendo and gossip and short on fact, that much of it is a coatrack for her husband's political career -- the section, for example, of Lord Rosebery's career after the Countess' death is over eight hundred and fifty words long -- and that this is not a viable subject for a FA-level article. Ravenswing 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- See talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
There is uncited text (I tagged some, but there is more) and an inconsistent citation style; I intended to clean up all citations, but cannot discern what style is intended, as there is a mix. A fascinating article, I hope someone with sources will work towards saving this FA; I will help with citation formatting if the article is cited and a style is established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, improvements have stalled and there are still unresolved issues (sourcing and citation consistency). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Dmitri Shostakovich
- Notified: Henry Flower, CurryTime7-24, Wikiproject Composers, talk page notice 2022-01-28
In late January, I brought up the article's problems at its talk page. It was last reviewed in 2007 and is unfortunately the poorest quality of all composer FAs. Sourcing is the most critical issue. Some pages are missing, and there are multiple CN tags present, though there should be far more. Some paragraphs rely on a single inline citation; the entire "Recorded legacy" section is an example. The article lacks enormous amounts of information available both in print and online. The "Early career" and "Later life, and death" sections both display elements of "list of events" rather than prose. They are also dull and monotone. Thank you and good luck to anyone who is willing and able to keep this FA. Wretchskull (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Wretchskull above, and also the English is often unacceptable shoddy, e.g. "Even before the postwar Stalinist anti-Semitic campaigns, Shostakovich showed an interest in Jewish themes", and "Thereafter, Shostakovich would celebrate the date of his symphonic debut for the rest of his life." The 'Music' section is painfully thin to the point of transparency. But where and how to begin reconstruction?--Smerus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the biography is largely salvageable with some care and a few more citations. I'm concerned that the music section would need a complete rewrite. There seems to be three approaches to music sections on WP, those considered with genres, those with style and those with chronology. The style group works best when composers stuck to a single or few mediums/genres, like in Chopin or Mahler. The genre approach works well with diverse oeuvres (Berlioz, Ravel), and the chronological approach can be used in similar situations effectively (Debussy, Holst). Currently Shostakovich is using a poorly written stylistic approach, which I don't think works well, and either the genre or chronological one would be considerably more effective. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm starting to realize that the lead is like, really bad... Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but the thing is there's not much point rejigging the lead until the article has been rewritten. The lead presently contains much text which is not validated by the article, and contains a host of citations referring to matters not covered in the article - as well as contradicting itself (e.g. "Long dismissed by Western scholars"/" throughout his life was regarded as one of the major composers of the 20th century".) Really all a bit of a mess. The article should certianly be stripped of FA status at present.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Tbf I added the "Long dismissed by Western scholars", only because Grove says "For many years, serious scholars in the West had scarcely bothered with Shostakovich", but the situation is impossible to explain properly without a well-researched reputation section to pull from (and the one at the moment is not ideal). Aza24 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but the thing is there's not much point rejigging the lead until the article has been rewritten. The lead presently contains much text which is not validated by the article, and contains a host of citations referring to matters not covered in the article - as well as contradicting itself (e.g. "Long dismissed by Western scholars"/" throughout his life was regarded as one of the major composers of the 20th century".) Really all a bit of a mess. The article should certianly be stripped of FA status at present.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- CurryTime7-24 has made some edits to the article. Are they hoping to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- When time permits, yes. I do what I can in the moments available to me to improve this article and other Shostakovich-related articles. I will add that as perhaps the editor who has worked on this article the most in the past few months, Smerus' gripes about my contributions being among those whose "English is often unacceptable [sic?] shoddy" is incredibly discouraging. I don't purport to be the second coming of William Strunk Jr here or anything, guy, but to me matters of prose style are secondary to the slips, errors, personal speculations, and outright falsifications that passed for "facts" here prior to my involvement. Moreover, I think in the few exchanges we have ever shared, I've been unfailingly polite and encouraging to you. Yes, much more work remains to be done, but I'm not a retiree with vast amounts of free time at their disposal. So rather than complain about other's hard work, please do feel free to grab a shovel, so to speak, and help out. Thanks. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- CurryTime7-24 has made some edits to the article. Are they hoping to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC just to keep the process going; it looks unlikely that this article can be brought to standard, but should a monumental effort occur, it can still be saving during the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Apologies CurryTime7-24, I did not realize that some of the contributions I criticised were from you - I thought they were accrued over the ages, and no personal affront was intended. You have absolutely correctly hit on the shortcomings of range and fact in the article. The prose quality of course is also an important component of FA. I am indeed a retiree, but with no vast amounts of free time at my disposal alas due to all sorts of commitments (so I'm not the only one to make assumptions), but I will do my best with you over the forthcoming period to polish the article up. --Smerus (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- No progress whatsoever in last two weeks, I am still at Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24: are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will begin work next week starting Monday, editing section by section. Have not been able to start yet or do much editing here in general because of pressing commitments elsewhere, but I should have enough time to work on this over the next two weeks, at least sporadically. If any other editors can help me by chipping in with improvements to style and grammar, I would be very grateful. Thank you all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- FYI: Work will start Tuesday, followed by a day-long interruption Wednesday. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone through the first couple of sections and tried to make a few small improvements to the prose. I may get around to editing a few more sections in the next several days, but I can't promise that I will. For what it's worth, my main reaction so far is that the high level of detail in much of the article (especially the Biography section) makes it more challenging to write clear, concise paragraphs - so far I have left this alone, and as someone who finds Shostakovich interesting I'm reluctant to say that we should have fewer details about him on Wikipedia, but overall I think the article might benefit from someone going through and considering which details could be moved to other articles or removed as less important. --Opus 113 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I will begin work next week starting Monday, editing section by section. Have not been able to start yet or do much editing here in general because of pressing commitments elsewhere, but I should have enough time to work on this over the next two weeks, at least sporadically. If any other editors can help me by chipping in with improvements to style and grammar, I would be very grateful. Thank you all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CurryTime7-24: are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Supernova
- Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06
Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g.,
On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...
), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary. Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-) My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}
20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-) My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --
- Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not vague enough thou. There are too many unsourced statements and some short paragraohs should be formatted. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- mikeu: there are a couple uncited paragraphs in "Type II", one in "Type Ib and Ic", one in "Light curves", six in "Energy output", and three in "Progenitor". Nothing leaps out at me as inaccurate — the people who wrote the text in the first place probably knew what they were doing! — but I'm not a specialist and may have overlooked something. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[9][10][11] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[9][10][11] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The nominator of this review, BloatedBun, has been indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
90377 Sedna
- Notified: DarkHorizon, Serendipodous, Kheider, Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, Eurocommuter, Ruslik0, JorisvS, WolfmanSF, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-04-03
I am nominating this article for review because this 2010 featured article is not up to standards anymore. The problem is mainly with FA criteria 1b and 1c ("comprehensive" and "well researched").
The vast majority of the article is between 12 and 14 years old, which is an eternity, both in astronomy and in Wikipedia history. Our understanding of Trans-Neptunian Objects in general has evolved a lot. To give just one example, most of the "classification" section was written in 2008, and some of it is obviously outdated. For instance, the sentence "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" (introduced in this edit on 16 February 2008) is wrong since 2012 VP113 was announced in 2014. While some errors like this are easy to correct individually, they are a symptom of the article's overall lack of maintenance, accumulated over the past decade. I raised the issue on the article talk page a month ago, but got zero responses.
A minor issue I have raised in my most recent post on the article talk page is the lack of a section dedicated to observations, see Talk:90377_Sedna#No_"observations"_section? Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- One thing I'd like to add: Following my last FAR nomination, which went over my head, I was uncertain about whether to raise this issue at all. I decided to go ahead, but I don't know how much I can contribute. I do have some expertise about the subject (more so than for the topic of the last FAR), which I am willing to offer, but I invite the users I notified to assist, if they can. Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- One more thing - I have not corrected the issue mentioned above ("no other objects have yet been discovered...") because, even though I assume that this may be an easy one to correct, I was waiting for input on the talk page, which there wasn't. I didn't know how to correct it a month ago and I don't know now. Renerpho (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Close without FARC. I'm not so convinced by the nominator's argument. Looking at the article, it seems like it's in pretty good shape. We haven't learned a whole lot of new things about Sedna since it was promoted to FAC in 2010. The biggest developments have been the discovery of a few other similar objects as well as Sedna's relation to the Planet Nine hypothesis, both of which are already included in the article. The statement "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" is in relation to Sedna's specific orbit with regard to whether it could be considered a planet, not with regard to other similar objects in general. That seems like a fair statement given that the other similar objects are not really in Sedna's vicinity, at least not compared to Pluto and its nearby KBOs. Some of the observations of Sedna after its discovery are already mentioned in the physical characteristics section when such observations were responsible for the discovery of new information about Sedna. I don't think it's really necessary to include other post-discovery observations that didn't help us learn more about Sedna. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Concern - the thing that sticks out to me is that the article isn't quite sure what 90377 Sedna is. The first sentence of the article states directly "Sedna (minor-planet designation 90377 Sedna) is a dwarf planet " but the classification section states that the official classification body considers it to be a "scattered object", but also says that some consider it a new class of object, and that it is also expected to meet the requirements to be a dwarf planet and that some have called it such. So the lead calls it a dwarf planet but the article body suggests that there's much disagreement about classification? Additionally, "Such a mission could be facilitated by Dual-Stage 4-Grid ion thrusters that might cut cruise times considerably if powered, for example, by a fusion reactor" looks like original research, unless the source specifically discusses a mission to Sedna; this is sending off strong original research warning signs because the "such a mission" referred to was proposed in 2018, while the source for that sentence is from 2009 so it's clearly not directly referring to the proposed mission. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's both a "dwarf planet" and a "scattered disc object", the same way Pluto is both a "dwarf planet" and a "Kuiper Belt object", but "dwarf planet" is clearly the primary classification in both cases. "Dwarf planet" is what it is, and "scattered disc object" is where it is. However, based on where it is, it's not really clear it should be considered a "scattered disc object" and might be better considered an "inner Oort Cloud object". There is no concretely accepted answer, and that is discussed in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- One correction: It looks like the Minor Planet Center doesn't list Sedna as a "scattered disc object" anymore. Still, I don't think there is so much to change because the article already presented that it wasn't really a scattered disc object. Sportsfan77777 (talk)
- Any idea where to find what (if anything) the MPC classifies Sedna as these days? @XOR'easter:? This looks fairly easily savable to my layman's eyes, so hopefully we can get this one pushed over the line. Hog Farm Talk 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, they just list it as a transneptunian object [12]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- One correction: It looks like the Minor Planet Center doesn't list Sedna as a "scattered disc object" anymore. Still, I don't think there is so much to change because the article already presented that it wasn't really a scattered disc object. Sportsfan77777 (talk)
- There is no official proposed mission. They are both talking about it hypothetically, albeit separately. You could go with "This type of mission" instead of "Such a mission" to better separate the two? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's both a "dwarf planet" and a "scattered disc object", the same way Pluto is both a "dwarf planet" and a "Kuiper Belt object", but "dwarf planet" is clearly the primary classification in both cases. "Dwarf planet" is what it is, and "scattered disc object" is where it is. However, based on where it is, it's not really clear it should be considered a "scattered disc object" and might be better considered an "inner Oort Cloud object". There is no concretely accepted answer, and that is discussed in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments by Renerpho Thanks for the comments, which sound encouraging so far. Below are some points, with details of where the article may no longer be in line with recent results. I'm sorry I didn't put these into the original nomination, but I have not yet been able to fully review the article. If someone with expertise in the topic could help with adding points that are outdated, I'd appreciate it! The points below are mostly about the "classification" section.
- As noted, the classification isn't straight-forward (for example, the dwarf planet classification is at odds with the "official" IAU status, compare Talk:90377_Sedna#Sedna_is_not_a_dwarf_planet_according_to_the_IAU). I think there is room for improvement when it comes to how Wikipedia handles these cases in general, but so far, the Sedna article seems to be in line with what we do elsewhere. No action about this is needed in the Sedna article, as far as I am concerned.
- Johnston's Archive, which is used in some similar articles ((589683) 2010 RF43, for example) classifies Sedna simply as a sednoid.[14] Should we add that as an additional source?
- Regarding the lack of objects in Sedna's vicinity, I think the claim at least requires a reference that says what it actually means. I am uncomfortable with solely relying on your (reasonable) interpretation, Sportsfan77777, especially since the sentence was added when my interpretation would have been purely hypothetical.
Caltech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Brown have hypothesised the existence of a giant planet in the outer Solar System, nicknamed Planet Nine.
- The numbers in that section (mass, orbital period) don't reflect the latest results by Batygin&Brown, compare the Planet Nine article. Should we update this?To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case.
- The reference for this is (Brown, 2008), which is fairly old, and determining whether something is in hydrostatic equilibrium was thought to be easier at the time. Brown's "dwarf planet census" seems to have fallen out of favour recently, because it is no longer in line with scientific consensus. See Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_there_some_reason_why_we_still_keep_Brown's_values? for a discussion. It turns out that this is complicated (for a recent related discussion of the possible shortfalls of what "hydrostatic equilibrium" means, see Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_the_Moon_in_hydrostatic_equilibrium?). An additional problem is that the size at which an object is expected to be in HE depends on its composition. In 2019, Grundy et al. found Sedna to likely be in HE, but also that many objects with diameters of 400-1000 km (Sedna: ca.1000 km) have densities that don't seem to allow for them to be in HE.[1] Compare the discussion at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Grundy_et_al.’s_assessment. Sedna's density remains unknown.and several astronomers have called it one
- That's nice, but none of the cited references is younger than 10 years. We can add Grundy from 2019, but it would be nice to have additional recent sources. I'll see if I can find any. Maybe someone can have a look, too?- What about the addition of an "observations" section? I see one reply above that argues against it, and one on the article talk page that is in favour of the addition. Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Renerpho:
it would be nice to have additional recent sources.
User:Double sharp found several from this year and last: [15], [16], [17], [18]. Though the 400k limit in the 2nd is obsolete. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Buie, M.W.; Benecchi, S.D.; Ragozzine, D.; Roe, H.G. (December 2019). "The mutual orbit, mass, and density of transneptunian binary Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà ((229762) 2007 UK126)" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037. S2CID 126574999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-07.
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated the Planet Nine numbers and made some other small emendations. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the concerns raised above have been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Planet
- Notified: Double sharp, Serendipodous, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, talk page notice 2022-01-27
I am nominating this featured article for review because of its many problems. I've looked through the majority of "citation needed" tags - there are 40 of them now, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. Artem.G (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Artem.G, please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done, I notified Double sharp and Serendipodous who edited the page not so long ago and who write about astronomy-related stuff; don't know how to find other major contributors who are active now. Artem.G (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very busy for the next two or three months, but I fixed some cn tags where a citation immediately came to mind. Many of them are pretty standard facts. My apologies that I cannot do much more than this for the time being! Double sharp (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Upon a first quick examination, it seems that most of the {{cn}} tags can be filled by standard textbooks and/or digging references out of neighboring bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The lede is something of a mess. For example, there's no way that a niche term like "planemo" belongs in the first paragraph. (To illustrate, it gets 111 hits on Google Scholar, versus 4,380 for "planetoid" and over 20,000 for "planetesimal".) Nor does it follow the article's organization, jumping into arcana of the IAU definition (which I gather to some people is what MOS:ERA is for Wikipedians) before summarizing the history. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tried my hand at drafting a new lede here, though I'm not sure whether the lede should be fixed first or last. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like your version, it's definitely better than the current one! If nobody would object I see no reason why the old lede should be preferred. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I went ahead and
kicked the hornets' nestreplaced the lede. I even resisted the temptation to add "so let's not fuck it up" to the end of the first paragraph. We're down to1916 citations needed. Some of them can probably be filled in without altering the surrounding text, while others might be eliminated by purging the accumulated cruft. The page needs a lot of work, but what I can't yet say is how hard that work will be. Some of the problems might well be solved by taking a good look, recognizing that the sentence doesn't belong in a broad overview of a big idea, and cutting it away. Applying a machete can go pretty quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)- I don't know if I'll be able to work on this any more; sorry. XOR'easter (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I went ahead and
- I like your version, it's definitely better than the current one! If nobody would object I see no reason why the old lede should be preferred. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tried my hand at drafting a new lede here, though I'm not sure whether the lede should be fixed first or last. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm very busy for the next two or three months, but I fixed some cn tags where a citation immediately came to mind. Many of them are pretty standard facts. My apologies that I cannot do much more than this for the time being! Double sharp (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done, I notified Double sharp and Serendipodous who edited the page not so long ago and who write about astronomy-related stuff; don't know how to find other major contributors who are active now. Artem.G (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
There appears to be a bunch of quotations in the subsection about the 2006 IAU definition of a planet that make the section look choppy, maybe we could try reducing it? Blue Jay (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The question of poor referencing is addressed, in "Size and shape" there is still 'needs expansion' template. Everything else is not bad, though a copyedit would help (maybe should ask at GOCE?). There is a question about 2006 IAU defenition raised above, but I don't really know how it can be reduced - quotes are from the IAU, so probably it's better to have a quote than a cluncky paraphrase. Artem.G (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I took a break from my break and expanded the "Size and shape" subsection a bit. I don't know what to do with the IAU definition business. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the quote from Soter could be paraphrased; it's not an official statement of any kind, so we don't need to worry about preserving its exact words. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I tried my hand at paraphrasing the Soter quote. Maybe that subsection is a little less choppy now. XOR'easter (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I took a break from my break and expanded the "Size and shape" subsection a bit. I don't know what to do with the IAU definition business. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Larrys Creek
- Notified: Ruhrfisch, WP Rivers, WP Pennsylvania noticed in March 2021
This 2006 promotion needs a touch of updating to get back to featured article criteria, but should overall be a fairly doable save. There's a sizable amount of uncited material in the plank road section, and there is some areas that need updating. For instance, "and it is still in operation as of 2007" is supported by a 1992 work and the lodge's dead GoDaddy site, so there's no indication in the sources if it's still open or not. "As of 2006, the club has 55 active and 15 honorary members (all male)." could also use updating, and the whole recreation section probably needs to be checked for datedness. The claim of "Larrys Creek is the largest creek in Lycoming County without its own watershed association" appears to be no longer accurate, based on this and this. The first PDF linked is only from 2011, but still suggests that the natural gas stuff in the article needs updating, with a reference to 38 gas pads in the watershed and an incident involving drilling mud getting into the stream. It also states that two of the tributaries of the creek are officially considered to have impaired water quality. This also mentions that it is illegal to put water from the natural gas operations into Larrys Creek, which would be interesting to add if a better source than a lesson plan could be found. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - I cwill work on it, but am fairly busy in real life (though I should be less busy in 2 to 3 weeks). My recollection is that the Plank Road material is mostly from the Landis article (back in the day I went to a library with a print copy and read that, and there is link to a re-typed version of the article given here for convenience). - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ruhrfisch has taken care of a good chunk of the uncited text. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- The natural gas material needs updated (I've found stuff from 10 years ago that reflects a later state of things than the article, surely there's something more recent to update with but I don't know where to find it). The recreation section still needs some updating IMO as well. Hog Farm Talk 13:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC (which doesn't preclude further work). Ruhrfisch has only made about a half-dozen edits everywhere since April. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
USS Missouri (BB-63)
- Notified: TomStar81, Parsecboy, Dawkeye, Bellhalla, Bschorr, WP MILHIST, WP Hawaii, WP NRHP, WP Missouri, WP Museums, WP Ships, WP Japan, WP Korea, WP USA, discussion of concerns in 2020
This 2005 promotion is now the second-oldest entry at WP:URFA/2020A. As noted in 2020 by Parsecboy, this article is over-reliant on DANFS at the expense of scholarly sources such as Stillwell. The article also directly copies DANFS for sizable swaths, which was quite acceptable at the time but is not really at FA today, especially when there's other literature to use. At a minimum, Stillwell should be used more, and Butler would be good for the grounding material. I suspect that Reilly would also be useful, although I am not familiar with that work. Much of the WWII section was improved back in 2020, but there hasn't been continued progress since. This is a pretty core article for MILHIST and especially for Operation Majestic Titan, hopefully it can be saved. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- As Hogfarm noted, the article relies on DANFS too much; it's a government source, which should be used with some caution. Some use is fine depending on the context, and in the cases of very obscure ships, it's unavoidable, but Missouri is among the most famous, well-documented ships so finding alternatives is not a problem.
- There are a number of sources that could be consulted to address the DANFS issue, in addition to Stillwell. Garzke & Dulin would be a good first choice to supplement Stillwell. I'm not familiar with Reilly's book, but it should also be useful; Caresse's The Battleships of the Iowa Class: A Design and Operational History might also help (though I'm given to understand that it's pretty photo heavy).
- There is a fair bit of extraneous info that could be culled. For example, in the Korea section the two paragraphs that begin and end at "MacArthur's amphibious landings at Incheon...were evacuated by way of the sea on 24 December 1950." are almost completely off-topic that could be summarized in a sentence or two to provide the context needed.
- There are plenty of prose issues that need to be ironed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The box is very long, and I don't think it does its purpose of summarizing the article well; it more or less fills the same purpose as the lead section (with the exception of technical information that is better suited to tabular display), and I think the article's authors have lost sight of that. It's filled with extraneous info that add little for the reader's understanding of the topic. I could happily see the badge, motto, and nickname fields go; the locator map for Pearl Harbor probably isn't of much use; I'm 50/50 on whether Margaret Truman should be listed in the sponsor field (in that yes, she's notable, but is she all that significant in the narrative of this ship that she should be mentioned in the box? The ordered field could probably go as well, in the interest of trimming things down. And the architect field in the NHRP section is redundant.
- Conversely, the lead is far too short and doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Why do we care that this ship was the third vessel named after the state? And why is that included when ship's WWII and Korea activities are described in a single sentence? No mention of goodwill cruises in the 1940s, or the grounding in 1950, or any of the ship's activities in the 80s and 90s apart from Desert Storm (which is also pretty minimal). For an article that is 75kb long, I'd expect more than 7(!) sentences in the lead.
- I'd wonder whether anything of note has happened since 2010, the latest info we have on the ship here. I know visitation was shut down in 2020, returned to limited operation late in the year, and then returned to full operation in mid-2021 - presumably that should be included. Apparently various educational activities and such are held aboard the ship - presumably that should be mentioned too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond what Hog Farm and Parsecboy have already mentioned, the images seem a little repetitive. There are two photographs of the exact same perspective from different decades. That would be great in a coffee table book, but I'm not sure how that is encyclopedic as there is no mention of how the second one differs from the first one other than time and painted numbers. The pop culture section should discuss the vessel's use in film (why is it chosen over other American museum battleships) and not just have a listing of what movies the vessel appeared in. Was there any fallout from the Cher music video beyond the navy not being happy? Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- According to Stillwell, the Cher incident created a minor controversy in the press (and generated complaints from veterans) but nothing significant as far as official reactions; as far as what he says, it's not clear to me that the Navy was particularly unhappy, since it amounted to free publicity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so even more reason to support your positions earlier, Stillwell needs more use. Llammakey (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Stillwell had almost 2 full (interesting) pages on it. Parsecboy you are right, the article had it wrong. I reworked and cited the whole section. North8000 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the curious (I was, obviously) the FA criteria added the bit about being representative of published works in Aug 2006, about a year after this article's FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so even more reason to support your positions earlier, Stillwell needs more use. Llammakey (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- According to Stillwell, the Cher incident created a minor controversy in the press (and generated complaints from veterans) but nothing significant as far as official reactions; as far as what he says, it's not clear to me that the Navy was particularly unhappy, since it amounted to free publicity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I’m late to this party, sorry, I’m just off work and after 8 long nights I am wiped out, but I note that I stand by what I stated earlier: the article itself is still sound. The external links are good and the sourcing is adequate, although the reliance on danfs and prose puffery have chewed into the articles quality. Still, though, this is a good 80% or so still featured article, so migrating sources and trimming prose shouldn’t be too hard here.
- As noted at the the article talk page, I'm not interested in becoming an advocate for FA status, but am interested in helping to improve the article, including working in some areas noted here. I did order the Stilwell and Butler books. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I received the Stilwell book and started reading it. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that I resolved the issue of insufficient coverage of Korean war service in the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think "USS Missouri Memorial Association Inc" requires its own subsection, and listing the salary ranges of its chief executives puts the article off focus (we don't put captain's pay grades in ship articles, you know). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good points, I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Question for the FA regulars. I bought and am reading the Stilwell and Butler books. Stilwell is a very thorough and extensive book on the Missouri, and Butler is on the grounding. Some of the comments above were basically that heavy use of or reliance on DANFS is a minus with respect to the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" FA criteria. I'd be happy to add cites to some pages in those books to some items that are cited only to DANFS. My question is: with respect to that FA criteria and it's application here, would it be better to remove the DANFS cites on those or just leave them double cited? North8000 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- @North8000: Sorry for the slow reply and the logged out reply, I’m pulling a double shift tonight and I don’t log in on the iPad, however the answer is that you should double cite. This establishes two separate citations for the information, so if we lose one we can use the other in cases like that to confirm the info. I believe that I had seen Stillwell’s book on Missouri before, it should be several hundred pages of detailed information if I recall correctly…only now that I’m not a student I can’t get back to the library on campus to use the book because the COVID pandemic has it limited to students and staff only at the moment. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:CD89:8DDE:70F1:59CE (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, an immense and thorough book. And it lists about 300 sources that it drew from (including interviews etc.) The only limitation is that it ends approx 1995. At that point the ship was de-comissioned, in Brementon, somewhat open to visitors. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the question of Margaret Truman in the info box, regarding info boxes, I'm sort of a "when in doubt, leave it out" guy. But that aside, she had a long history with / interactions with the ship that spanned many decades, and her dad was a strong and powerful (including as president) supporter of the ship, also with many interactions with the ship. IMO probably merits a line in the info box. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I finished reading the Stillwell book and started adding cites in places where only DANFS was cited. Also based on detailed coverage in Stillwell, fixed what was clearly an error (results of star shell accident) and removed the web site source that had the error and was only used for that item. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC) I added put at least a dozen Stillwell cites in places that previously had only DANFS cites. The DANFOS cited could be removed but per advice above, I did not remove them so DANFS is cited as many times as before, albeit now with less reliance it. I believe that this resolves that issue. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm out of town for work right now but will try to give this a read through when I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm back, will begin a readthrough with any comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm out of town for work right now but will try to give this a read through when I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- A good bit of the follow-up list on the FAR talk has been addressed, but there's still about a half-dozen things outstanding on that list - some larger, some smaller. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm:@Nikkimaria: I'm planning on fixing most of them while hoping that others will jump in and beat me to it. But with the backlog crisis at New Page Patrol, I've been spending most of my wiki-minutes there lately. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A good bit of the follow-up list on the FAR talk has been addressed, but there's still about a half-dozen things outstanding on that list - some larger, some smaller. Hog Farm Talk 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I just fixed the last item on your list on the talk page.North8000 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've already committed to re-reviewing H.D. and Darjeeling for FARs, but will get back to this one once I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Californication (album)
- Notified: Naerii, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers diff, WikiProject Alternative music, diff, WikiProject Albums, talk page notification 2021-05-04
I am nominating this featured article for review because... as outlined by User:Hog Farm here, this 2007 FA has seen better days and is certainly the Chili Peppers FA (out of five) in the worst state. Outside of sourcing concerns that Hog Farm mentioned, all of the article's single release dates are currently unsourced, the entire outtakes section is sourced by one source (unreliable at that), the critical reception section is a mess, and the article in its current state doesn't really justify what it to the band themselves (i.e. being a fan of the band, it essentially saved them after the comedown that was One Hot Minute and proved they would succeed after Blood Sugar Sex Magik).
I feel like I could do some things to help, but imo the entire article needs a major revamp, and I unfortunately do not have the sources to be able to do that. So here we are. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Zmbro: Yeah, I knew this was gonna happen. All of the RHCP articles that got promoted to FA status are old, and most need some cleanup. I worked on Niandra Lades so I'll see what I can do for this article.
- Side note, two RHCP albums (Californication and Blood Sex Sugar Magik) are in the Rolling Stone 500 project, and while realistically that project will never come close to being finished, I still think it's important to keep at the very least those two albums at FA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Zmbro: I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and newspapers.com. That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Famous Hobo and Zmbro: - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Zmbro and Famous Hobo: - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Sorry about the delay, I'll get back on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Zmbro and Famous Hobo: - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removed. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hog Farm Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Famous Hobo and Zmbro: - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and newspapers.com. That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Zmbro: I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Famous Hobo LMK if you need help with reception. I know I can be of assistance there. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Question: would this be considered reliable? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE the answer would be yes. The author appears to be a staff member. With that said, I'm not sure what the source would be used for? Is it used to further the claim that the album is derided for it's mixing? If that's the case, I think there are better sources out there. Also, thank you for the edits! I'm a slow editor if you couldn't tell, but I am working on a writing and recording section with the limited sources I've found for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the masters issue, because a quick google search indicates that Californication is particularly notorious for having poor mastering. And no problem! Happy to help. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote a short paragraph about the mastering issues in the retrospective commentary section. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this topic, so I probably glossed over some important information. In this book Perfecting Sound Forever (here) the author goes into detail about the specifics of the terrible mastering on Californication, then talks about some history not related to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, then goes back to Californication around page 280. Figured I should mention this. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the masters issue, because a quick google search indicates that Californication is particularly notorious for having poor mastering. And no problem! Happy to help. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- My observations:
- I think there are too many citations in the lead. The lead should summarize points verified elsewhere in the article, so having citations in the lead is redundant.
- Lots of overlinking. British Phonographic Industry is linked every time it comes up. Also lots of X's being used where times signs should be used.
- Ray Gun reference is missing a page number.
- Removed "prince.org" reference, which appeared to be a web forum. This is the only source I saw that didn't look reliable.
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- TenPoundHammer We're still in the process of expanding, the lead section basically hasn't changed but will when Famous Hobo and I finish the rest. And the linking issue will fix itself once likewise once the rest is good. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Hey guys, nice work on trying to keep the article at FA status. I have a few questions/comments about the article mainly pertaining to the Reception section. First off, for the "retrospective commentary," I think one addition that would be helpful would be to talk about Californication in comparison to the state of rock music during that time, specifically how it stood out amongst the nu metal and rap rock/rap metal albums and artists prevalent in the late 90s. RHCP in general has often been cited as the progenitors of the whole funk metal/rap rock movement which later inspired nu metal, and during the time the album came out, other bands both directly and indirectly inspired by them achieved mainstream success with their own albums, like Limp Bizkit's Significant Other, Korn's Follow the Leader/Issues, Incubus' Make Yourself and so on. I found a Washington Post source from the funk metal article that kind of touches upon this, mainly about how Korn and Limp Bizkit expanded on RHCP's style between OHM and Californication. But if you want, maybe you could find more sources/reviews as to how it has aged compared to the nu metal era/90s alt-rock scene as a whole, along with its influence on rock beyond it merely marking RHCP's musical shift? I think doing so would make its legacy a bit more comprehensive. Speaking of which, my other comment is if we could change it to a more general Legacy section instead, and maybe add some more music listicles where the album is featured. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
H.D.
- Notified: Ceoil, WP Gender Studies, WP LGBT studies, WP London, WP Lehigh Valley, WP Women writers, WP Women, WP Bio, WP Pennsylvania, WP Women's history, WP Poetry, talk page notice 2022-03-07
I am nominating this featured article for review because there is some uncited text and after having tried to source some of it and read a bit about the subject I found there is some rather important info either missing or uncited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Some problems are quick to fix, like the external links in the bibliography, which can become footnotes instead. I do think the article is rescuable, though it would be easier if there was a really good, recent biography to rely on for filling gaps. I would have liked to find something from 2000 or later, but even the HD society doesn't point to one. The best sources might be:
- this 1995 bio
- from 2011, the MLA Approaches to Teaching H.D.’s Poetry and Prose might have some very useful overviews
- Susan Friedman’s article in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 45, 2nd series (volume is entitled, Modern American Poets) - HD society calls it "excellent and highly recommended"
- Herself Defined: the Poet H.D. and Her World, by Barbara Guest, an "authorized biography" from the 80s that still seems to be in use
- Before I did my source search, I was more alarmed by the fact that the sources in the article are a little old. But now that I have looked for something newer, I am a little less worried that they are out of date. Or, if they are, there isn't an obvious better source. I am pretty busy this week but may see if I can find some of these sources and start poking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Its a fair nom of an old FAR save and does need to be brought up to standard. The recent FAR driven overhaul of the closely related Imagism[19] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have gone through some other poetry FAs and seen some have an own article on works or bibliography like Stephen Crane or Maya Angelou. Other FAs also have a selection of works included in the article on the author. I'd personally prefer an own article for her bibliography, but I am not so much into the subject. Or maybe her works could be presented more in detail as in some of the other FAs. What is your opinion on the matter Ceoil? - Paradise Chronicle
- Usually would go for a separate article, but think here the section (now retitled "selected works" so we don't have to be exhaustive and converted to two columns so it doesn't take up too much space), we have is concise and manageable. Not opposed to spinning out however. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
As an update, am traveling for another week or so, so do not have access to my book sources. Also have ordered [20] which looks promising for expansion. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Having seen your effort in ordering a book on her, I also made some online research and intend to work on the article a bit while you are away for the next week or so.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Am really delighted to hear that :) Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, I am getting into it. On her relationship with Bryher there seemed to be quite much written and Norman Holmes Pearson, the holder of her copyrights is not mentioned yet in the article. They seemed to have had an extensive, decades-long professional relationship, with him publishing her works also after her death. H.D.'s daughter Perdita seemed to be working with him during WW 2 in the secret service.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
As an update, my copy arrived yesterday, but am still at the reading through stage. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am updating the article with info I find. I don't so much take care on prominent sources (because I don't find them on the subject) but on info I see as notable. But like this it might not be a FA. I hope for Coeil to maybe find some ways to keep it an FA. A personal life section might be good? Or a section where the shifting relationships are better described? As to me that H.D. and Bryher kept being a couple while changing husband and lover is north a section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ceoil, Paradise Chronicle, how are things looking? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I have added some citation needed templates to unsourced phrases but I am sincerely not so much interested in keeping this an FA. The sources within the article are often rather good looking, though and if someone was interested enough, I assume they'd find the sources matching the phrases. (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still interested, and will repost here shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paradise Chronicle's tags and additions have been most helpful. needs more work but I think doable if a time allowance is given. Will work away and update again here in a week. Paradise, your help would be much appreciated; imo the legacy sections is most lacking. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- most of the citation issues are fixed, now expanding the text. Will update again over the end of next weekend, when I will feel ready to face the FAR nominator.Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paradise Chronicle's tags and additions have been most helpful. needs more work but I think doable if a time allowance is given. Will work away and update again here in a week. Paradise, your help would be much appreciated; imo the legacy sections is most lacking. Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still interested, and will repost here shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I have added some citation needed templates to unsourced phrases but I am sincerely not so much interested in keeping this an FA. The sources within the article are often rather good looking, though and if someone was interested enough, I assume they'd find the sources matching the phrases. (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ceoil, Paradise Chronicle, how are things looking? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am updating the article with info I find. I don't so much take care on prominent sources (because I don't find them on the subject) but on info I see as notable. But like this it might not be a FA. I hope for Coeil to maybe find some ways to keep it an FA. A personal life section might be good? Or a section where the shifting relationships are better described? As to me that H.D. and Bryher kept being a couple while changing husband and lover is north a section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, Paradise Chronicle; am now ready to take feedback. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is in a far better shape than before, my main concerns were addressed, no more uncited phrases in the article. Thank you Ceoil also for the additional images. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can probably read through it over the next week if it needs another set of eyes. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's on my list, too, but things here are slow going due to IRL stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The article is in a far better shape than before, my main concerns were addressed, no more uncited phrases in the article. Thank you Ceoil also for the additional images. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- How are these two thoughts -- in the same sentence -- related? She met Pound in 1901, and attended Bryn Mawr College between 1904 and 1906.
- Split up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I thought innovate was a verb?? championed her as an innovate poet.
- Reworded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why "already" ... no prior context for this ... By this time Pound had already relocated to England,
- Tweaked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- ???? In 1896, hes was appointed Flower Professor of Astronomy
- ???? After she studied at home until 1910.
- I don't understand the section heading "H.D. Imagiste" ... we shouldn't repeat the article title in a section heading, and why not just, Imagist?
- It's not nonsensical, and the couple sources I'm skimming do focus on Pound's "H.D. Imagiste" inscription on her poem mentioned in the section. She also places some importance on that moment. Still, Imagism might be a more descriptive heading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- ???? He was impressed by her awareness of the aspiration's for contemporary poetry and free verse which had been discussing with Aldington, with whom he had shared plans to reform through tanka and the brevity of haiku. ????
Stopped there, do not understand what is happening here, but unless much more work is planned, it looks like we should be moving to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers does this article interest you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It sure does! How can I help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- See my post just above ... I started at the top and found all sorts of problems. Thanks for helping! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed a few (hopefully). In general, I think the copy-editing/clarity issues alone are significant. The citations themselves need some fixing up. I'll dig into it. I have no informed opinion on whether fixes can happen during FAR or if a move to FARC is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- With you, Ceoil and Victoriaearle on it (3x competence), theoretically a move to FARC should be avoidable. Thanks again for helping out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I fixed a few (hopefully). In general, I think the copy-editing/clarity issues alone are significant. The citations themselves need some fixing up. I'll dig into it. I have no informed opinion on whether fixes can happen during FAR or if a move to FARC is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- See my post just above ... I started at the top and found all sorts of problems. Thanks for helping! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It sure does! How can I help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've been working from the bottom up and very slowly (well, that's an understatement!). I am familiar with H. D's story - at least the early years, but came to it via the sources to do with Pound and it's better to get her out from his shadow where she's lingered (as Ceoil has suggested), so there's more reading involved. The article makes sense to me, so maybe it's just an issue of rewording? Will continue to watch to see how it develops. P.s I don't see this in FARC territory at all. Victoria (tk) 13:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, so now I understand why I found so many problems at the top! Thx, Victoria ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Enzyme inhibitor
This was noticed near the end of 2020, there is a bunch of problems with the articles. Unsourced sentences, the images are laid out messily, the writing needs a overhaul. There are a lot of issues with this article that I don't think will be fixed. GamerPro64 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have reordered a few of the sections, corrected a few inaccuracies, improved the image layout, and have added a few citations. I will add more as I find time. Any additional problems? Boghog (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely looks improved from the previous version. Gonna need another take from someone more seasoned with medical articles at least. GamerPro64 04:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Boghog: I am not a medical expert (maybe SandyGeorgia can suggest a couple of editors to take a look at this?) but I'll give some general thoughts below as a non-expert reviewer. I noticed that there's lots of paragraphs that either do not have citations or do not have one at the end. When I write historical bios, I typically require a citation at the end of the every paragraph, minimum, to verify the preceding information. I'm not sure how it is with MED articles, as there are formulas involved, so instead I will post some of these paragraphs without citations below:
- There's a couple of paragraphs that do not have citations that concern me. One place is the "Types" section (under "Reversible inhibitors"): uncompetitive inhibition has a citation at the end of its paragraph but the other do not. What is verifying the information in the other three paragraphs, and should there be a citation at the end of them?
- Under "Quantitative description" there are paragraphs between formulas that are not cited. I am confused about which sources are verifying this information. Is there a way that citations can be added to these paragraphs?
- The first paragraph in "Measuring" does not have citations. Is citation 33 verifying this information?
- The first paragraph in "Applications" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
- The second paragraph in "Antibiotics" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
- The first paragraph in "Pesticides" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
- I hope this gives a good start in things to consider. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Boghog: I am not a medical expert (maybe SandyGeorgia can suggest a couple of editors to take a look at this?) but I'll give some general thoughts below as a non-expert reviewer. I noticed that there's lots of paragraphs that either do not have citations or do not have one at the end. When I write historical bios, I typically require a citation at the end of the every paragraph, minimum, to verify the preceding information. I'm not sure how it is with MED articles, as there are formulas involved, so instead I will post some of these paragraphs without citations below:
- Definitely looks improved from the previous version. Gonna need another take from someone more seasoned with medical articles at least. GamerPro64 04:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Z1720 for your comments. I am gradually adding more citations to the sections that you mention. Under the Quantitative description section, the second half of the section was added after the the article was promoted to FA in this edit, is fairly technical, and the only support I could find was in a predatory source. Prehaps it would be best to delete this material altogether. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do not have the subject-area expertise to comment on what should and should not be in the article, so I will defer to other's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is too much text uncited that should be cited, inappropriate use of bolding, and while I am not easily frightened by biomedical topics, I can get no sense from the lead of ... anything. The lead needs to be brought down a level, into plainer English, less jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read through yet.
- Is interfers British spelling?
- "For example, in the Lineweaver–Burk plots at the right, ... " nothing at the right ... so a complete read-through is needed.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I updated the lead to make it more accessible for laypeople and corrected some minor misspellings and whatnot. Surprisingly, „interfers“ is not (yet) accepted British spelling. But I daresay it will be someday, as a posher variant of gofers — looks better on a résumé, no? ;)
- I also clarified the text regarding the Lineweaver-Burk plots, to make it easier to recognize which diagrams are meant and how they illustrate the type of inhibition (competitive vs. non-competitive).
- I've also done a quick scan through the article to find mistakes, but not yet a thorough read-through. Willow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I am going to be traveling for my son's wedding, and won't be able to follow progress on this nom for several weeks, but on a quick final glance I see:
- Paragraphing in the lead makes no sense and it is still not lay-reader friendly.
- WP:CITATION OVERKILL ... maximum reaction rate catalyzed by the enzyme) and Km (the concentration of substrate resulting in half maximal enzyme activity) as the concentration of the enzyme's substrate is varried.[2][4][5][6][7]: 132–167
- Still some text that is uncited that needs citation.
- Still some MOS:BOLD wonkiness.
- A complete read-through is needed.
GamerPro64 I won't be available to help bring this one over the line. Perhaps you can enlist Graham Beards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks SandyGeorgia for your constructive comments. Concerning the lead, for context, it should brefily put in context what an enzyme is and why it is important, but perhaps it could be trimmed back a bit to focus more closely on inhibitors, and that might make it a bit easier to digest. Concerning the single bolded term that is not in the lead sentence, covalent reversible inhibitors is a redirect, and hence is an allowed exception to MOS:BOLD. I will work on adding more citations to other parts of the article and remove citation overkill. Congrats to your son and enjoy your trip! Boghog (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I can follow from iPad, but can't do much to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think all the concerns raised above have now largely been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Just one note in passing. Above it was suggested that we need a medical review. However, with the exception of the Enzyme_inhibitor#Drugs section, this article is more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- This section (for example, natural poisons and drugs) contains biomedical/health statements that I don't feel qualified to assess; the article needs a medical reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Reliable secondary sources should be sufficient to support statements about poisons. We are not going to run randomized double blinded clinical studies to confirm that exposure to nerve gas causes deaths in humans. That would obviously be unethical. Animals studies + ancidotal human evidence is more than sufficient. Statements such as 1/3 of currently approved drugs are enzyme inhibitors are uncontroversial and are backed up by reliable secondary sources already included in the article. Boghog (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- This section (for example, natural poisons and drugs) contains biomedical/health statements that I don't feel qualified to assess; the article needs a medical reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think all the concerns raised above have now largely been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Just one note in passing. Above it was suggested that we need a medical review. However, with the exception of the Enzyme_inhibitor#Drugs section, this article is more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Acronyms are used before they are defined (eg, ATH, NADH); check throughout needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Evad37/duplinks-alt reveals a number of duplicate links, but they are probably justifiable by the complexity of the topic; I have rejigged to avoid some Easter egg links, and that should be checked throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- The lead image and caption are not explaining to the layreader what an enzyme inhibitor is, rather providing too much detail that isn't helpful to the lay reader, who will access the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability:. Your figure is beautiful and a big improvement over the figure that it replaced, but is not as dead simple as it should for the lead of a featured article. I can simplify the caption, but I am not nearly the artist that you are. Something similar to this might get the point across more clearly. Can you make something similar? In addition, something like this figure would be great further down the article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree - It probably makes sens to have a highly sinplified variant for the lead image. I'll get on it this week. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have put in place holder "pac-man" figures, but please feel free to replace. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've added some updated figures throughout, aiming to use similar colour schemes to those used in enzyme. I've also edited the kinetic mechanisms to use the Ki' making system (rather than the old Kii nomenclature) as I think it's more common these days. A number of publications use the αKi nomenclature, but it's used inconsistently and more complex inhibitor suituations use a different nomenclature again (example) I've also tried to make the italicisation consistent, but please do check if I've missed any! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The new graphics are perfect! Both dead simple and visually pleasing. Also thanks for your other edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries! I might also try to make something for metabolic regulation within pathways (including end-product regulation) as I think it's easiest when visualised. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The new graphics are perfect! Both dead simple and visually pleasing. Also thanks for your other edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've added some updated figures throughout, aiming to use similar colour schemes to those used in enzyme. I've also edited the kinetic mechanisms to use the Ki' making system (rather than the old Kii nomenclature) as I think it's more common these days. A number of publications use the αKi nomenclature, but it's used inconsistently and more complex inhibitor suituations use a different nomenclature again (example) I've also tried to make the italicisation consistent, but please do check if I've missed any! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! I have put in place holder "pac-man" figures, but please feel free to replace. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have inserted a simplifed figure (File:Enzyme inhibitor.svg) and caption, that while not as pretty as the original, hopefully it is dead simple and appropiate for a lay reader. Boghog (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have also added a second figure File:Enzyme inhibitor types.svg in this edit. Boghog (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Evolution and evolvability:. Your figure is beautiful and a big improvement over the figure that it replaced, but is not as dead simple as it should for the lead of a featured article. I can simplify the caption, but I am not nearly the artist that you are. Something similar to this might get the point across more clearly. Can you make something similar? In addition, something like this figure would be great further down the article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed external jumps from image captions and completed incomplete image captions: this citation needs to be completed. Unsure if that should be a cite web or a cite journal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is both a journal citation and a Protein Data Bank entry. Added both in this edit. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- A short description of why each item is included in See also would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unique sub-headings: the heading "Examples" is used twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure how to address this. The "Types" and "Examples" subheadings are used twice, but they are under different headings, "Reversible" and "Irreversible", so it is implied that the headings mean "Reversible types", "Irreversible examples", etc. We could spell out the implied meaning, but that would violate WP:HEAD (don't repeat heading titles in every subheading). Alternatively, a synomyn could be used, but I cannot think of any good synomyms to use in this context. Boghog (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to repeat subheadings under different headings in this context, and the shorter Types subheadings are definitely better than Types of reversible inhibitors etc. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is a bit problematic though, as it messes with section linking processes. Enzyme inhibitor#Types will always go to the first use of the section heading. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have addressed that issue; there are still remaining issues. MOS:SEEIMAGE. Throughout, the text refers to image placement with words such as "on the right", etc. Images display in different places on different browers; this needs to be redone. @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: do you find the lead accessible to a layperson? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is a bit problematic though, as it messes with section linking processes. Enzyme inhibitor#Types will always go to the first use of the section heading. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to repeat subheadings under different headings in this context, and the shorter Types subheadings are definitely better than Types of reversible inhibitors etc. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure how to address this. The "Types" and "Examples" subheadings are used twice, but they are under different headings, "Reversible" and "Irreversible", so it is implied that the headings mean "Reversible types", "Irreversible examples", etc. We could spell out the implied meaning, but that would violate WP:HEAD (don't repeat heading titles in every subheading). Alternatively, a synomyn could be used, but I cannot think of any good synomyms to use in this context. Boghog (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- While complying with MOS:COLOR can often be difficult, and not a reason alone for opposing an image, it is awkward to have a lead image that breaches MOS:COLOR and that contains excess information. A simpler lead image is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The bottom row of the lead graphic (File:Enzyme inhibitors.svg) depicts allosteric inhibition and is not directly discussed in the lead. I have therefore replaced it with a new version (File:Enzyme inhibitors 2.svg) which removes the bottom row. I think the remaining information is very relevant to the lead and does not contain any excess information. The top row depicts what an enyzme does (first paragraph of lead), and the bottom row depicts how an inhibitor works (second paragraph of lead). The current colors do not pass the contrast standards for the color impaired. However the graphic does contain symbols for enzyme (E), substrate (S), product (P), and inhibitor (I). I have added these symbols to the caption. Boghog (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- A jargon check/wikilinking check is needed throughout; eg, isomerization, Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor doesn't seem to be linked. Pls check throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Review throughout for MOS:CURRENT issues; time context is needed for statements like "More recently, an alternative approach has been applied: rational drug design uses the three-dimensional protein structure of an enzyme's active site to predict which molecules" ... something like ... since the 1970s, in the 21st century, etc. Similary, missing as of dates, sample: "currently approved drugs are enzyme inhibitor". Similarly, but also indicating the article is still dated: "repeated until a sufficiently potent inhibitor is produced.[95] Computer-based methods of predicting the affinity of an inhibitor for an enzyme are also being developed, such as molecular docking" is cited to 2003: "also being developed" still ??? Updates needed. Another example of a MOS:CURRENT, missing as of date, is: "An estimated 29% of currently approved drugs are enzyme inhibitors[74] of which approximately 1/3 are kinase inhibitors."
- Concerning MOS:CURRENT, in this edit, I specified when. Concerning molecular docking which was mentioned in the Discovery and design of inhibitors section, the entire section was out-of-date and read like an advertisement for virtual screening. While virtual screening is useful, it is only one many strategies that are used in modern drug disocovery. Therefore I have completely rewritten this section based on more recent secondary sources. Hopefully the section is now more balanced. It needs some additional copy edits and I am working on this. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This issues indicates that a top-to-bottom check for WP:WIAFA compliance and comprehensive rewrite has not yet been done. Shall we MOVE to FARC or is someone able to do a comprehensive check and update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your constructive criticisms. All issues that have been identified above have been fixed. The introduction section was not as accessibe as it should have been, but it has been extenstively rewritten and now it should be understandable to a wide audience. The Drugs section was also rewritten to bring it up-to-date and to broaden its scope. The Discovery and design of inhibitors section had some neutrality issues and also was not up-to-date. This section has been completly rewritten to adress these concerns. I have gone over the rest of the sections and in my opinion, they look like they are in good shape. Basic enzymology concepts that are presented in the Reversible and Irreversible inhibitor sections have not changed that much over the last 20 years. Furthermore I think these sections were well written and organized to begin with. Hence I don't think these sections require a comprehensive rewrite. The main problems with these two sections were lack of citations and jargon, but these has been fixed. Of course, if any additional issues are identified, I will work to correct them. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Solar System
- Notified: Nsae Comp, Ruslik0, Kwamikagami, JorisvS, Rfassbind, Ashill, Double sharp, Serendipodous, WP Systems, WP Astronomical objects, WP Solar System, talk page notification 2022-02-22
I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Technically, you are supposed to wait at least 2 weeks for someone to respond. This article is listed on WP:URFA/2020A (kept at FAR in 2009) but has not been examined yet. There is considerable unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cinadon36; your notifications are looking good, the remaining step is to list them above, using the format at Mars. No harm done here, as it does not appear that the Astronomy WikiProject has the people power or the interest in keeping their articles at standard anymore; a very sad loss for Wikipedia, as we had most of the Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinadon36, I completed the notification listings for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm spread thin these days, but I took a first whack at addressing the issues raised on the Talk page, and I trimmed a little. My impression right now is that the uncited material can probably either be cited to standard textbooks (or possibly journal articles), or removed as WP:UNDUE. It's a fixer-upper, but not a trainwreck. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, @XOR'easter the article just needs some small fixes, the structure is excellent, so is most of the text. Cinadon36 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done some more work and remain optimistic. I moved the history-of-science section to the end of the article, which seems to be more in line with how Wikipedia typically does science articles: modern status first, history in the middle or later (compare the FA speed of light and the GA quantum mechanics, for example). I'll have to think more about if and how it needs revising. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Update? @Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the uncited text is "summarizes the linked article" kind of stuff or standard reference material, which looked easy to fix, so I was hoping somebody else would do it. I may have time later this week. I have no great sense for how many images is too many; for whatever reason, the arrangement of images on Wikipedia pages hardly ever strikes me as aesthetically pleasing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've been watching both, and impressed, but no time to respond yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That section has been bothering me, too. I ended up removing one of the wide images and the table. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I went through and winnowed them. I think that widely-separated instances of technical terms are probably OK to link twice (a reader might encounter them in a later section without having seen their use in an earlier one), but there was definitely a lot that made for choppy reading. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see you got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I noticed that and thought about removing it, but he does appear to be a subject-matter specialist [21], so I set it aside for the moment to work on more pressing troubles. It can probably be removed as redundant with the JPL website that's currently footnote 1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Removed now (though I wouldn't have a strong objection to adding it as an external link). XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've been trying to make the references consistent as I go along, but I haven't yet had the will to do a top-to-bottom revision of the metadata formatting. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think they're all "last name, first name" now. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone through and applied various fixes and made refinements to the content and references. All tags have been addressed. It looks like XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane have been doing the same. Hopefully it's back close to FA quality now. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:FAR coordinators: , is FARC necessary? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- This YouTube video here: [22] from 3:47 – 4:20 shows a good graphic about the Solar System's composition. What else do you guys want me to add? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep listed I have finally eked out the time to look at the changes made since I last worked on this article, and I believe that it is up to the required standard. XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep listed There are a lot of places that can see improvement, but this article is a FA, full stop. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: the talk page states that this article is already in FARC. Could we get a status update? Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you are seeing that; the nomination is still in the FAR stage. The status is, two editors have opined that the nomination should be closed without moving to FARC. If you disagree, you can enter a "Move to FARC" declaration. If you agree, you can enter "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of Keep FA status), and if you think more work is needed, that can also be stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I missed the 'If' at the start of the template message. Sorry. Old, tired eyes I guess. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Join the crowd :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I missed the 'If' at the start of the template message. Sorry. Old, tired eyes I guess. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you are seeing that; the nomination is still in the FAR stage. The status is, two editors have opined that the nomination should be closed without moving to FARC. If you disagree, you can enter a "Move to FARC" declaration. If you agree, you can enter "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of Keep FA status), and if you think more work is needed, that can also be stated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Chicxulub crater
Notifications
|
---|
|
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over a decade since it was promoted and the article now has a number of issues. I am not sure it satisifes WP:FACR criteria 1.a,b,c,d, or 2,a,b. I have cleaned up a lot of the articles content, and the scope of the previous separate Chicxulub impactor article has been merged into this one, because there is not enought that can be said about the impactor to justify separation. One of the issues I have is that the energy values given for the impact are based on an unpublished preprint, and ideally should be replaced with a more reliable scholarly source. It's also not clear that the article comprehensively covers the recent literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
A more thorough review of the article:
- The discovery section seems fine, no need for major changes.
- The opening section of the "Impact specifics" seems fine (largely because I wrote it), however, it doesn't cover the nature of what is known in impact geology as the "target rocks", which in this case were marine carbonates and anhydrite, which should be included. There is some discussion of it in other sections, but there is in fact no mention of anhydrite anywhere in the article, despite its importance in recent literature.
- The second section of "Impact effects" doesn't cover a lot of the recent literature. Some of the impact specifics are cited to interviews in The Dinosaurs: Death of the Dinosaur a 1990 PBS documentary. This is not an ideal source and should really be replaced with modern scholarship. Others are based on the thirty year old paper "Chicxulub Crater; a possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico", which should also ideally be replaced with more recent literature.
- "Astronomical origin of impactor" seems mostly fine (because I wrote about half of it), this was merged from the redundant Chicxulub impactor article.
- "Chicxulub and mass extinction" fails to mention any reason as to why the impact is thought to have caused an extinction, which seems like a major omission.
- No strong opinions on the "Expedition 364" section, though it does seem large relative to the rest of the article.
- The current reference style is a bad hybrid between visual editor automatic citations and harvard style footnotes, this should be fixed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of referencing, I'm fine with adjusting the style—since people do drive-by additions and rarely follow Harvard, I think it makes most sense to collapse the notes and refs into one section, use everything in ref tags w/ citation templates and if necessary use {{rp}} for specific pagination where necessary outside of the citation. I would think at least for the ease of improving things shoving current citations into a reflist in the references section would be best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree on the Expedition 364 section that it just feels like recent information not properly contextualized and integrated into the article, so I've started trimming it down and moved it into the geology/morphology section where I think it makes more sense.
- Working on migrating refs and tagging some that don't appear to be used currently in the process for evaluation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've migrated sources from the bibliography to the references section, so everything now uses {{reflist}}; some ref formatting for missing fields/differences in formatting still needs to be done. There remains a number of phantom sources left over in the bibliography; some can probably safely be jettisoned but I will need to go through them to double-check. Once that's done I will get back to prose cleanup; seems like editors were busy adding in facts that were redundant to other parts of the article, so a lot in the "mass extinction" section can be cut or recontextualized. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia, I've substantially revised and slimmed down the extinction section, and tried to reduce redundancies with other sections throughout. While there's still work to do in terms of formatting refs, copyediting, and pulling a few more refs to source stuff I don't think was adequately or clearly referenced previously/cleanup tags, wanted to check in. I think the article is better weighted towards more recent sources and incorporating them better into the flow of the article. Thoughts? Additionally User:Wretchskull if you had any thoughts would be good to get more than one opinion here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- The article looks great now, but I have a few comments:
- Per MOS:SEEALSO, links given in the body should not be mentioned in see also. Remove Iridium anomaly. List of impact craters on Earth is already linked, but because it isn't displayed verbatim, and because I'm certain readers would click such a link, I'll let you keep it if you want to.
- If you could remove the three refs in the lede and incorporate them in the body that would be great.
- There are still two citation needed tags. Have you searched anything on internet archive, google books, google scholar, the Wikilibrary, etc.?
- Ref 69 uses the deprecated parameter "|lay-url=".
- Perhaps link "million years ago"?
- Thank you for your work! Wretchskull (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there has been a signficiant improvement. Another issue I have is that we are continuing to use newspaper articles such as the BBC for the effects of the impact, when these really should be sourced to journal articles, see cf. WP:MEDPOP. In particular there appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC sourcing, where in the BBC article it says gypsum was injected into the atmosphere, but recent journal sources say the evaporite component was almost entirely anhydrite (which is effectively an anhydrous form of gypsum), maybe that is just semantic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wretchskull I believe I've addressed your concerns except for the lay-url thing (there's some disagreement on whether it's gonna' stay deprecated so I'll leave it for now.) Hemiauchenia, I'm fine with using the the journals to double-verify what's in the news articles (the specific example you pull I think is a distinction without a difference for our purposes, but c'est la vie), but the main issues with relying on them solely (besides starting to get into the weeds of minor stuff that I don't think a general wikipedia article should bother with, see the aforementioned 'is gypsum 100% technically the right word') is that they're really not set up for giving useful soundbites to quote versus specific facts and figures. The books and longform journalism articles in the article right now are much better at giving a broad overview, so I'd be reticent to cut them.
- On that subject, the article currently is structured with explaining how Penfield &c. discovered the impact crater, its description, effects, and then talking more about the extinction theory. I'm wondering if that's a weird way of structuring it? Versus starting with the Alvarez hypothesis in 1979/80, discussing the search for the crater generally (Alvarez's book gives some useful info there that's not included at present) and then going to what is currently the opening of the article. Perhaps that level of context makes more sense for the overall structure of the article and the narrative? It also then allows us to more directly talk about the effects and why that was obviously a disaster for life/cause of the K-Pg extinction in the effects section itself, versus a final section partially restating some of the details from before. Since you felt that the section was sort of weird to begin with Hemiauchenia maybe this gets around the problem entirely? (On the other hand, I do kind of like ending it with the declarative bits about why the crater is so important, but I think a lot of that stuff about being accepted by the scientific community would still end up at the end of the article regardless.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I went ahead and adjusted it. The final paragraph feels slightly out of place but it fits much better with everything else I think it's an overall improvement. Also expanded the discovery section a bit in the process. As for the newspaper/news sourcing, I can be double-checked but I think most have a corresponding journal citation to verify their more technical claims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: Excellent work! By the way, this edit seems rather contentious, as it substantially alters a significant figure about the speed of the impactor; I can't fault the latter source added, though. Also, "perhaps" (in the same clause) feels a little unencyclopedic, and I would probably replace it with "approximately/about/circa/most likely" or anything else. Wretchskull (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I went ahead and adjusted it. The final paragraph feels slightly out of place but it fits much better with everything else I think it's an overall improvement. Also expanded the discovery section a bit in the process. As for the newspaper/news sourcing, I can be double-checked but I think most have a corresponding journal citation to verify their more technical claims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there has been a signficiant improvement. Another issue I have is that we are continuing to use newspaper articles such as the BBC for the effects of the impact, when these really should be sourced to journal articles, see cf. WP:MEDPOP. In particular there appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC sourcing, where in the BBC article it says gypsum was injected into the atmosphere, but recent journal sources say the evaporite component was almost entirely anhydrite (which is effectively an anhydrous form of gypsum), maybe that is just semantic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- The article looks great now, but I have a few comments:
- Hemiauchenia, I've substantially revised and slimmed down the extinction section, and tried to reduce redundancies with other sections throughout. While there's still work to do in terms of formatting refs, copyediting, and pulling a few more refs to source stuff I don't think was adequately or clearly referenced previously/cleanup tags, wanted to check in. I think the article is better weighted towards more recent sources and incorporating them better into the flow of the article. Thoughts? Additionally User:Wretchskull if you had any thoughts would be good to get more than one opinion here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - The section "Geology and geomorphology" seems to combine the two topics, without doing a particularly good job on either. There's also quite a bit of geological information in the preceding "Impact specifics" section, so a reorganisation may be in order. Another issue is that there are a number of statements in both sections that seem to be based on a misreading of the cited sources e.g. "Vaporized rock, including sulfur-rich gypsum from the shallow coastal waters, was injected into the atmosphere.", whereas the importance of the shallow water is that most of the impactor's energy was spent in melting and deforming rock rather than displacing water, which would have been the case in much deeper water, allowing the anhydrite-bearing Lower Cretaceous rocks towards the base of the 3 km sequence of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks to be vaporized. Again, in the same paragraph, "... determined that the impactor landed in deeper water than previously assumed, which may have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.", which also seems to be suggesting that the sulfur is coming from the water somehow, whereas in this case, it's the increased water vapor reacting with the vaporized anhydrite that would have caused more of the aerosols to form, according to the cited source. The explanation of the formation of cenotes (2nd para Geology and morphology section) due to there being a "water basin" is less than clear, nor why the groundwater created all those caves and cenotes where they did - Hildebrand et al. 1995 link them to slump faults along the crater rim. Much is made of the "pink granite" in the 4th para., although its colour doesn't seem very important. Undoubtedly the granite has moved upwards due to the impact, from a deeper level, although how deep is unclear - it's just part of the underlying basement. The section lacks a clear description of the impactites that the various boreholes have encountered or how they are thought to be distributed around the crater. There's no mention of suevite in the article, although it's ubiquitous in the cited sources. The final sentence states that "The post-impact tsunamis were sufficient to lay down the largest known layered bed of sand, around 100 m deep and separated by grain size, directly above the peak ring." That's not what the cited source says, it states "in the hours that followed (the impact) ocean tsunamis dumped huge amounts of sandy sediment in the giant hole in Earth.", mentioning no thickness, no claim to be the largest known and saying that they were deposited in the crater not on the peak ring. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've made a start on reorganising by adding a "Morphology" section. Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cross-section now added. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Mikenorton are you done with the substantial content changes? I'm back with access to my databases so I want to go through and spot-check stuff now that the content has shifted but don't want o go down that road if things are still substantially changing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've been attempting to rewrite the "Geology" section but it's slow going - see here. Sorry to be so slow at this. I think that we also need a section on "Investigations" to understand the data that's been used, particularly the seismic reflection data that's been acquired and the boreholes that have been drilled since the identification of the crater. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- My initial thought is that's getting way too into the weeds here for a general overview of the crater? Stuff about individual boreholes and the like feels like it's dumping jargon no one outside of geology students or scientists are going to know or care about. Beyond that the geology starts getting into the weeds of the area rather than the crater, which I think is out of scope for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The crater is a geological feature - putting more detail in about the geology hardly seems excessive to me. Where else would we put such material? Well, I've gone ahead and replaced the existing geology section and I'm now working on a a relatively short summary of the post-discovery investigations - we wouldn't even know for sure that it was a multi-ring structure if it wasn't for the seismic reflection data that's been acquired over it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- My initial thought is that's getting way too into the weeds here for a general overview of the crater? Stuff about individual boreholes and the like feels like it's dumping jargon no one outside of geology students or scientists are going to know or care about. Beyond that the geology starts getting into the weeds of the area rather than the crater, which I think is out of scope for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've been attempting to rewrite the "Geology" section but it's slow going - see here. Sorry to be so slow at this. I think that we also need a section on "Investigations" to understand the data that's been used, particularly the seismic reflection data that's been acquired and the boreholes that have been drilled since the identification of the crater. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey Mikenorton are you done with the substantial content changes? I'm back with access to my databases so I want to go through and spot-check stuff now that the content has shifted but don't want o go down that road if things are still substantially changing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cross-section now added. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - While working on the article I noticed that the gravity image (File:Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg) appears to have an erroneous license as it claims that "it only contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey". Links to the original image state in contrast that "This image was constructed from gravity measurements taken by Petróleos Méxicanos beginning in 1948 in the course of petroleum exploration augmented by recent work of researchers from the Geological Survey of Canada, Athabasca University, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán." Regretfully, I think that I should start a deletion process on commons, as I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't be using it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Mikenorton is continuing to work on the article, with a huge edit to the Geology section on March 22 and others making smaller improvements. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've finished what I had intended to do, although I suspect that there's some duplication in there still. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- There hasn't been much in the way of substantial edits this month, are we done? Mikenorton, @David Fuchs:, Hemiauchenia? (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, I'm finished, unless there are any comments on the changes that I've made that need action. Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think there shouldn't be any issues related to the originally-raised ones, but Hemiauchenia is the one who probably most needs to check in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hemiauchenia do you have any outstanding concerns here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. Feel free to close this if there are no other objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Green children of Woolpit
- Notified: Drmies, talk page notification 2020-04-15
- Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Q28 and/or buidhe, please also notify other major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe when you have to complete the nominations for another editor, you can add their name so it doesn't look your nomination thusly: {{subst:FARMessage|Green children of Woolpit|Q28}}. All parties have not yet been notified. ~~~~
- Drmies is listed above as notified, but I see no notification on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm completely uninvolved, but I've been notified. Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because I have some concers re close paraphrasing and over-reliance on certain sources. I gather from the FAC that no spotchecks were done, which I find a bit bewildering. Anyway, let's have a look:
- Article: In a modern development of the tale the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die; in this version the children's green colouration is explained by their having been poisoned with arsenic. Fleeing from the wood in which they were abandoned, possibly nearby Thetford Forest, the children fell into the pits at Woolpit where they were discovered.
- Source: In what seems to have been a recent development of the story […] the children are identified with the familiar "Babes in the Wood" […] According to this version, their green coloration was due to arsenic administered by their wicked uncle; fleeing from the wood where they were abandoned (perhaps nearby Thetford Forest), they stumbled into the pits at Woolpit
- Article: The second is that it is a garbled account of a real event
- Source: Others accept it as a garbled account of an actual occurrence
- Article: Ralph's account in his Chronicum Anglicanum, written some time during the 1220s, incorporates information from Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, who reportedly gave the green children refuge in his manor, six miles (9.7 km) to the north of Woolpit.
- Source: Ralph of Coggeshall's version, in his Chronicon Anglicanum (English Chronicle), was not finally written down until the 1220s; but it incorporated information from a certain Richard de Calne of Wykes, who had reportedly given the Green Children refuge in his manor.
I also think it's kinda weird that no pages are cited for journal articles (which can have rather long page ranges, like Clark 2006, Lawton 1931, Lunan 1996, Orne 1995, Walsh 2000, etc.). --Q28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- Q28, not citing pages is not "weird"--it's pretty common practice, certainly for those who use only the regular citation templates and cite articles in notes and books in bibliographies. It would be nice if the "cite journal" template had a parameters for the pages of the article and the actual citation. To appease I made some tweaks to get the paraphrase further from the original. But that "no spotchecks were done"? It is more likely that the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence: the reviews were done by seasoned editors. AGF please. And remember that "close" in "close paraphrase" is a matter of opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- So, Q28, this wasn't you, this "I"--it was User:Eisfbnore, who tagged me on the talk page over a year ago. I don't remember if I saw this; if I did, I must not have thought it of great concern. It's funny that you would pretend here to complain about close paraphrasing when of course the entire text is copied verbally from someone else; perhaps Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is of use here. But beyond this particular case (Eisfbnore, please see my edits to the article), I have some questions about competence, given for instance this edit and the reply to this edit by User:SandyGeorgia--thank you, Sandy, for pinging me. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Drmies I don't believe Eisfbnore will see your ping; they have had two different accounts since then. See here and followup at their user talk and Iri's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- Also, Drmies I've gained some experience with the {{Copied}} template because of the CCI on WikiProject Cyclone, so if you'll let me know where the copying within came from, I'll make those additions to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- You know what, SandyGeorgia, a little bell is starting to ring, and I'm wondering if that backstory doesn't have something to do with it on my end--that I saw the ping, saw where it came from, and ignored it--that's a thing I can see myself do. Anyway, their edit was this; they never returned to the matter, and they certainly didn't more formally notify me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- If we can address the copying within, this FAR can probably be closed. Please let me know from whence it came, and I will do the proper edits to reflect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, it's in my previous response. This is what Eisfbenore posted, and Q28 just copied it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I misunderstood; I thought you were saying that Copying within was responsible for the close paraphrasing, and that the text came from another article. Sorry for the distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, it's in my previous response. This is what Eisfbenore posted, and Q28 just copied it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- If we can address the copying within, this FAR can probably be closed. Please let me know from whence it came, and I will do the proper edits to reflect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- You know what, SandyGeorgia, a little bell is starting to ring, and I'm wondering if that backstory doesn't have something to do with it on my end--that I saw the ping, saw where it came from, and ignored it--that's a thing I can see myself do. Anyway, their edit was this; they never returned to the matter, and they certainly didn't more formally notify me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'll put things more nicely; Q28, beginning FAR reviews based on other opinions is fine (like how multiple users will bicker about an article and someone else unrelated will join the discussion and WP:AFD it), but since this is direct pulling proper credit needs to be given. If you didn't know about this, that's perfectly fine, and I apologize for our stink-eyes. If you acknowledge and apologize, we can move on (and actually fix the article while we're at it). Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Refs, I don't know about all this above^^^ but I made a start on one of the citations to provide page numbers (as someone pointed out above, to avoid overly broad page ranges per V). As my editsum makes clear, I have indulged mightily in citebanditry as I know no other way. Although it's worth noting that the article already uses {{sfn}} for some sources anyway, so I fail to see why others have to be in a list of stuff. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can see, the sources with the page ranges are Lawton 1931, Briggs 1970, 2X Clark 2006, Lunan 1996 and Harder 1973, all of wot I got. SN54129 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
- Someone still has to address the close paraphrasing/copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Close without FARC, I'm not seeing any other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)- There are possible comprehensiveness issues though, the article does not mention J. H. Prynne's The Land of Saint Martin which is apparently based on the green children story? Or other works? We mention The Man on the Moone but not the role the green children played in that work? This was just based on a quick Google Scholar search. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth and Drmies: if one of you could address Buidhe's comprehensiveness concern, we might get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, thanks for the alert. I'll get on it, but I don't have access to any of those articles. Plus, I have to say, that what appears to be a rather obscure three-page poem doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned here, by analogy with WP:COVERSONG. And who is J. Anderson Coats? I see it--but again, how important is this? When I get access to those reviews, I'll give them a sentence. The bigger thing, about Godwin, I'll have a look at the article and see if there is material that should be included. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, I'm looking at these citations. I see that User:Serial Number 54129 was wondering about them, and has started to move some references to another system. I think, if I'm looking correctly, that has led to some inconsistencies with punctuation. I suppose, then, I need to do all of them with that "sfn" template. Originally, we had books in the bibliography and articles in the notes, which I believe was Malleus's system. I'm also adding page numbers when I can. Sandy, this is a useful thing I'm doing, right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of moving to sfns; don't worry about punctuation inconsistency-- that is the kind of manual work I am happy to clean up for you, more important is that those who have the sources get the content work done and page nos provided. Ping me when you are ready, and I will do any work needed for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth and Drmies: if one of you could address Buidhe's comprehensiveness concern, we might get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe, Drmies, Ealdgyth, and Serial Number 54129: I have standardized the citation format. Could someone specify explicitly what is missing? If I must, I will get the sources myself; it's time to get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry—got distracted—can get involved with sources tomorrow morning UTC—apologies also to Drmies for ignoring you—and apologies for fecking up your references. SN54129 20:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was just me, being unnecessarily grouchy. If I can't wake up to find Putin gone, at least I can hope for some FARs to move along! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC; no edits since mine on 4 March, at my wit's end for how to get this one moving. FARC does not preclude further work happening, but need to keep this moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC unless someone is willing to address buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Some months ago, I attempted to standardize the citation style after Drmies made considerable edits (see discussion above). Drmies had used the citation template, rather than cite templates, which do not use trailing punctuation, so I removed trailing punctuation from the short notes. Subsequent edits have re-introduced cite templates, short notes with trailing punctuation, and a mixed citation style. Which style is wanted? My preference would be to remove the citation templates originally used and go with cite templates, so we don't need the silly |ps= none on every short note. At any rate, one style needs to be decided on and implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed, Sandy (although she may not know that yet!), and I agree that the
|ps=none
is wholly unnecessary, and just adds to to the cite bloat. SN54129 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)- Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the difference! I think I made two additions to the Sources list myself, and looking back, one of them was using Cite book, and the other used Citation because I copied and changed another publication by the same person which used Citation. Please do all you can to standardise it. John O'London (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Pinging John O'London as they've been working on the article lately. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some of the page ranges are too broad; specific page nos. needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- What are the correct pages here? Is it one page (13) or a page range with a typo?
- Hartley-Kroeger, F. (2019). "Review of The Green Children of Woolpit, by J. Anderson Coats". Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 73: 13–13. OCLC 760196674. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can't help with Bulletin of Center for Children's Books - but what are the specific other ones with page ranges 'too broad'? [Sorry - just spotted Simpson/Roud, Harder and Duckworth!] (Thanks for all your hard work!) John O'London (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Does anyone have immediate access to the Duckworth reference (Australian Literary Studies 26.3-4) to check the page number? I can't access the 2011 volume online, and at the British Library you need to order it up two days in advance - and I'm not planning to go there again soon. Thanks to DrKay for sorting out the Oxford dictionary refs! John O'London (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
FAR discussion - I came late to this - the Green Children article was on my watchlist, but I wasn't aware of the move to FAR until after User:Serial Number 54129 added a considerable amount of text to the article on 30 March - in fact expanding the article by 50%. The questions surely became, were the extensions of the same FA quality as the original, were they properly integrated with the original, and does the expanded edition warrant FA status. Much of the discussion took place before that expansion. User:drmies and User:SandyGeorgia had already begun making improvements. I've done quite a bit of work on the expanded version since, checking and adding refs, occasionally tweaking the language to make it (I think) clearer. But I've avoided any major rewrites, even when I think the text as-is might be misleading. To declare an interest, in real life it's a subject I've done a lot of work on - I know too much about it, and have my own opinions about the subject; I also regard some of the sources cited as unreliable, not worth citing, or just plain wrong (all three are true of Varner 2006, for example!). So I shouldn't be editing it at all! Could some disinterested party read through it? - for example, does it now meet the first of the FA criteria? Is it really "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Does it now have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? John O'London (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- and with apologies, I should obviously have restricted my tinkering to the extra 50% text added by Serial Number 54129, rather than the original FA text. But he had inadvertently introduced some errors in the original text, like changing the date of the Duckworth ref from 2011 to 2006, and I didn't always distinguish between what was original FA and his additions. It was the extent of his additions, which seem to have been accepted without query in the middle of an FAR, that encouraged me to think what I wanted to do would be acceptable.John O'London (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Your arguments alone would warrant delisting, if you provide more detail on issues of sourcing and accuracy. My earlier "Move to FARC" declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- I may answer at length later - but here's a pretty typical example of what happened when I started editing it. Serial Number 54129 had introduced a new section heading 'Music' - under it they included (taking the text from the original FA article) Glyn Maxwell's play Wolfpit - which is a verse play without music. So I simply moved it to the previous section, which contained various other literature. But then I read what the original FA article said about it "In 2002 English poet Glyn Maxwell wrote a verse play based on the story of the green children, Wolfpit (the earlier name for Woolpit), which was performed once in New York City." No, Maxwell wrote and published his play in 1996, and it was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that year. So I found a source to cite for the 1996 performance, and changed the date - but also left the ref to the NYT review in the original FA for the later NYC performance (there've been more than one in NYC - and no doubt others elsewhere). This is what I meant about whether the additions were properly integrated and the need to consider the whole of the new version. John O'London (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
IP post on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I entered a Move to FARC last March; my opinion has not changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a latecomer to the discussion, it's hardly up to me, but in any case, I don't know how one moves it to FARC. Perhaps someone would like to bite the bullet and do so, and we can take it from there? John O'London (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR Coords decide what consensus there is based on declarations from the participants. Declarations at this stage can be things like "Close without FARC" (the equivalent of a "Keep" FA), "Move to FARC", "Work continuing", etc ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- As a latecomer to the discussion, it's hardly up to me, but in any case, I don't know how one moves it to FARC. Perhaps someone would like to bite the bullet and do so, and we can take it from there? John O'London (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Since the people who edit this "encyclopedia" presumably have access to the back issues of folklore journals and other online resources which are free if you can log on as a member of the relevant university, but cost everybody else so much it isn't worth it, perhaps a little research in that area would be useful? I mean proper research, not the wikipedia version of research that autistically lumps together everything that references the subject of the article in any context and gives it all equal weight, whether it's an academic treatise or a passing mention on The Simpsons.
In this instance, we have an extremely improbable tale derived from only two sources, both secondary at best and written long after the alleged events. The earlier of the two makes the only mention anywhere of a named primary witness, Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, whoever he was. Thus if Sir Richard was for any reason not telling the truth, it's just a tall story that he told, Ralph of Coggeshall believed, and William of Newburgh also believed when he heard about it in some other way a few decades later. And unless we assume these bizarre events to be literally true in every detail, Sir Richard, who claimed to have known the Green Children quite well, either told his own story very inaccurately or was very badly misquoted.
So if we treat the tale as history, we have a straight choice between believing that a lost tribe of green people live in mysterious subterranean villages beneath England from which they sometimes emerge through caves no-one can ever find afterwards, or that the story is possibly to some degree true, but every extant version of it leaves out important facts and inserts impossible ones, so basically the number of reliable sources is zero.
On the other hand, from a folkloric perspective, almost every detail fits an extremely generic narrative about fairies which somehow made the transition from pure fiction to a rumour which people came to believe was true. I said "almost" every detail. The two points which don't fit are that fairies aren't mentioned at all, the place from which the children came being called "Saint Martin's Land", a mysterious realm which as far as I know is unique to this story, and that there's a reference to this strange land having Christian churches. Which makes perfect sense if you assume that whoever invented the tale - possibly Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, to wind up a gullible monk - simply retold a traditional fairy story as fact, but left out all mention of fairies and inserted a couple of Christian references because otherwise it would have been a direct accusation that the villagers of Woolpit consorted with pagan creatures that according to official Christian doctrine were literally devils.
Modern attempts to make the narrative fit whatever agenda the writer is obsessed with are all desperately contrived. At best we have to assume that the inhabitants of Woolpit somehow didn't know of the existence of another village within walking distance entirely populated by immigrants who didn't speak English, and they never, ever found out about it. At worst, we have to swallow the barking mad word-salad of professional eccentrics like Duncan Lunan and accept that it's perfectly plausible for Star Trek transporter beams to accidentally whisk people across the galaxy from strange medieval planets inhabited by little green men who live on beans.
If the article was rewritten so that the bulk of it treated the story as the folklore it obviously is, and compared it with other traditional tales of fairies, fairyland, intermarriage between humans and fairies, and so on, it might be more objective, and perhaps even encyclopedic. You could still have a little bit at the end listing the nonsense. And nonsense it is. Your own page on Duncan Lunan, which reads as though it was written by a very close friend of his, contains statements like "On his mother's side, he traces his ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve", and cheerfully recounts his claim (since retracted) to have decoded radio messages from an alien probe in orbit around the Moon. I would be disinclined to take seriously any theory about anything proposed by this fellow, particularly if it was published in a magazine mainly devoted to science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.224 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Josquin des Prez
- Notified: Turangalila, Aza24, Toccata quarta, Antandrus, Jerome Kohl, WP Composers, WP Bio, WP Christianity, talk page notification 2020-12-17
This is a 2007 FA whose main editor has not significantly edited Wikipedia since that year. After I pointed out some fairly minor issues on talk last year, Aza24 and Toccata quarta raised more significant problems with comprehensiveness, synth and OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Aza24: - I see that you've done a bit of cleanup - do you think that this one is fixable? Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since the music section (definitely the most complex section) is so thorough already, I do think it is possible. I would need some time though, as I'm juggling many things right now. I'll see what Josquin books my library has; it really just needs a lot more information from Fallows, which is by-far the best source on Josquin's life. Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying; keep us posted on your progress! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since the music section (definitely the most complex section) is so thorough already, I do think it is possible. I would need some time though, as I'm juggling many things right now. I'll see what Josquin books my library has; it really just needs a lot more information from Fallows, which is by-far the best source on Josquin's life. Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Aza24 when you get to this point … References and further reading might be separated, and some short-note citations have final punctuation, while others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy, I've done the former just now. I've gotten a hold of Sherr 2000 and Lowinsky 1976; I've also just now requested Fallows 2020 from my library. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24 are you still thinking this is doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
There were some edits yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi all, sorry for such a delay. Unfortunately this week I have some other WP stuff higher on my plate but after that (by next weekend) this will be at the top of my list. I have all the sources necessary and have been reading through them for some time now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Update: Aza24 has been editing the article this week, and edited the article yesterday. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24 do you have an estimate on timing for finishing up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's a good question—I'm probably not taking part in TCC so I can focus on this. I'm thinking in the next two weeks I can get most of the preexisting issues fixed up, and add the more obvious omissions. After then I'll try to draft a new reputation section, which will need to include quite a bit of new scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
27 April Update Thanks everyone for their patience, I'm going to give an idea of my general plans from today onwards (for mainly myself, but also so others know progress is being made and areas for improvement have been identified).
- Life section
- Need to take another look at the
1st paragraph of Birth and background;last paragraph of Ferrara; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left(might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)- The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
- The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
- Need to take another look at the
- Music
- Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
- Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
- 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
- Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
- What has been done already:
- Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
- Entirely new Portraits section has been added
- Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
- Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
- The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
- Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
- My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24, are you still working on things here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes! There are mainly three sections left to be fixed up/updated: 1) Overview (in music); 2) Secular music; and 3) Influence and reputation. The masses section will need a few additional refs, and the Milan and travels as well as Milan and France are missing a little bit of information. I recently updated the motets section and began adding refs to the Masses one. I'm aiming for completion in the next 2–3 weeks (overcompensating with that estimate, though, and it will hopefully be done sooner). Aza24 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24, are you still working on things here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Aza24, any update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
- Notified: nominator has retired from Wikipedia. Talk page notice 2021-11-16
- Nutez, please notify anyways, and also other active editors and potentially interested WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nutez notifications have still not been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nutez, please notify anyways, and also other active editors and potentially interested WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Belated notifications on 2021-12-29; please hold in FAR for at least two weeks from this date. Fritzpoll, WP:BIO, WP California, WP Death, WP Elections, WP Politics, WP US, WP Crime SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it has prose and style issues. There are tags for {{colloquialism}} in the text, and many paragraphs have no citation whatsoever. The article does not reflect the most recent discourse surrounding the assassination. It does for instance not relay his son, RFK jr.'s thoughts on the murder, or the debate around Sirhan Sirhan's tentative parole by Gov. Newsom.[23] Nutez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Additionally, I do not think that all of the sources here are high-quality.
- I don't see why a PRNewswire press release should be used for anything related to this subject. There are guaranteed to be much better sources than that for basically any aspect of this event
- " "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ABC News Live Coverage". YouTube" - no evidence that WP:COPYLINK is met here
- WP:RSP lists Democracy Now! as a bit of a marginal source, there should be better sourcing available for an FA on this topic
- " Pruszynski recording & analysis by acoustic expert Philip Van Praag Archived " - published by rfkmustdie.blip.tv, any reason why this is high-quality RS?
- "Levin, Robert E. (1992). Bill Clinton: The Inside Story. S.P.I. Books. p. 60. ISBN 978-1561711772." - anyone familiar with this author/publisher? If this is the right linkedin page for the publisher, then the publisher apparently has single-digit employees
There's also a goodly number of reference formatting problems, with one source being simply "California State Archives" and a number using "Archived copy" as the title. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can maybe try to improve the article, give me a day or two to begin assessing it/finding better sources/formatting references/fixing other issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone have thoughts on whether the caption "Robert Kennedy campaigns in Los Angeles, 1968 (photo by Evan Freed)" ought to have the parenthetical italicized? I'm always confused by {{xref}} and similar. (please use
{{reply to|Sdkb}}
on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC) - Okay, the article is salvageable! After taking a look, I think it can be saved. This a very important topic, and there are many sources which can be used. I did some minor copy-editing, and am in the process of re-arranging sources (separating books/journals/scholarly works from contemporary news sources). The main issues here is with the sourcing, there are few paragraphs poorly sourced/not sourced. Various YouTube citations and news articles can be replaced by more reliable works. I'll work on the article and will try to improve it to FA status by December 31. @Nutez, do let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Update – January 2, 2022: I have re-organised and more importantly, expanded the "Background" section, using WP:HQRS. Broadly, these were my edits, (which includes edits by few other users as well, to whom, I am grateful!) Willing to work rest of the article, if it can be held in FAR till then. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria : I am trying to get this to present FA status. I found this June 17, 1968 issue of Newsweek magazine. It has many images which may be useful for the article. It was published between 1926/77, and I don't see any indication of copyright on the magazine issue. Would {{PD-US-no notice}} apply? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Most of those images are credited to other sources - you would need to track those down in order to determine status. Some have a copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kavyansh last edited the article on 2 Feb. The article has improved considerably but I still see referencing issues, at a glance #59, 77, and 104 in this version of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Yeah, I am still interested in fixing the article. I'd say more than half work is done. I'll appreciate if you could hold it in FAR for few more days. I tried to add scholarly sources, and will replace the sources mentioned by Buidhe with better ones. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty well, but bit slow. This is now on my top priority list ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Kavyansh.Singh: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Yeah, I am still interested in fixing the article. I'd say more than half work is done. I'll appreciate if you could hold it in FAR for few more days. I tried to add scholarly sources, and will replace the sources mentioned by Buidhe with better ones. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Kavyansh last edited the article on 2 Feb. The article has improved considerably but I still see referencing issues, at a glance #59, 77, and 104 in this version of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Update: Kavyansh.Singh made significant edits to the article on March 15. Is work continuing? Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Following on this and this, a thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check will be needed if this article heads towards Keep territory, in addition to a rigorous copyedit. That said, I don't see it heading for Keep territory. Here is the Background in the version that passed FAC; the current version is bloated, veering off-topic, and over-quoting. The prose is not at FA level: sample "In 1964, polls showed that various Democrats wanted Kennedy to be Johnson's running mate in the presidential election." Similar bloat and prose issues are found in the next section. Overquoting here, and this is not FA-level prose. Unless more editors plan to step in here to do address the original FAR concerns without bloat and marginal prose, I think we should be in Move to FARC territory, to keep this on target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:
- The sources used in the article with associated page numbers are mostly from the FA version a decade ago (promoted by you). I don't know how the two FACs you link are important here to demand a "thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check". I have no objections at all with the check being conducted, but what significance does that example of FACs of 2021/22 have on a 2008 promoted article?
- As for the prose, I very much appreciated anyone copyediting the prose. But for the off-topic background section, I disagree. That section now is not off-topic. Everything in the first sub-section is important:
- Visit to Palestine - important as Sirhan Sirhan was from Palestine and that visit made impact on Kennedy's views on Israel (later mentioned in the article)
- JFK's election and RFK as Attorney general, cuban missile crisis - important as to specify what led to RFK becoming, from President's brother to national leader and an influential figure which ultimately led to his presidential campaign.
- JFK assassination - important to mention as to specify, so called, "Kennedy curse"
- Johnson and RFK senatorial campaign - important as (1) to specify RFK's relations with LBJ (2) Kennedy mentioned his views on Israel in a speech in senatorial campaign.
- Vietnam War - important to specify why a Democrat would run against a Democrat president in primaries.
- As for the second sub section, it specifies events that lead to RFK becoming the front runner and ultimately being assassinated. Please let me know what else is "veering off-topic", because in few political articles as this, background is very important. Suggesting to see Cross of Gold speech#Background.
- I will still work on the article, but if others feel my work (from this version to this version) is not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, feel free to move this to FARC.
- – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources. On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today. All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- No apology is needed; of course I have some bad promotions (no comment whether this one is, as I haven't even looked closely enough to say). On the issue of whether there is too much background, removing text is easier than adding text, so I'll hold off on that until sourcing and prose is examined. Since you seem aware of the work still needed here, I will debold my declaration to move to FARC, and check in later. But when serious copyediting is needed, I'm not the best person to do that work; I am always willing to do some copyediting, but I recognize my own prose limitations. Perhaps when Z1720 is back up to speed, they will look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources. On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today. All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:
Back to the article, I'll appreciate feedback on the following issues:
- The FA promoted version of the article was very concise (around 16,500 characters). Since then, lot has been added about "Assassin's gun" which I feel is not much useful. Who brought the gun, who did he sell it, how did it reach Sirhan, what was the cost, who "paid the $6 balance" has nothing much to do with the assassination. I could just remove much of that section, but would that be seen as compromising with comprehensiveness?
- I don't feel File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg in any ways contribute to the article. It is a non-free media (again, added after the 2008 promotion). Would that be fine to just remove it.
- I need feedback on sources. For FAs, we need "high quality reliable sources". In my previous FACs, I have been told that contemporary reliable news reports are fine to use as long as they are not used to support any evaluative claim. Because the initial FA version uses few issues of Time magazine's 1968 articles, almost all used to support the events of the assassination. I don't think that would be an issue, but just to be sure, could anyone more experienced take a look at sources in the Works cited section (only), few cleanup is still needed in the "References"
Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- My feedback:
- The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.
- Checking further, the entire section was added by one editor, and the "who Wrote That" tool indicates it has been relatively untouched in the three years since (including the whopping 11-sentence quote). In other words, no FA-level eyes were watching this article. The upshot seems to be to debunk conspiracy theories; that can be done without the blow-by-blow detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am indifferent on that one; someone may find it relevant.
- On those contemporary sources, I believe they are typically OK unless (and this is the key) more recent scholarly sources cover the material better or differently. This is where knowledge of all sources comes in to play (survey of the relevant literature). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at archive.org ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Few are available at Google books and have preview. Rest journals can be accessed through WP:TWL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at archive.org ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.
- I made few edits today. On progress. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
FAR break
Okay, so as of April 25, 2022, I feel that as long as content and source reliability is concerned, I have tried to fix most of the issues. It has also been updated with the most recent information. There may still be few prose issues and old verifiability issues. At this stage, I'd appreciate others commenting on the state of the article and what could be done to improve it. For comparison:
- The FA promoted version — August 12, 2008 : this
- The FAR nominated version — December 20, 2021 : this
- Current version — April 26, 2022 : this
- Changes since nominated for FAR : this
Pinging everyone associated with this FAR: @Nutez, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Sdkb, Buidhe, and Z1720: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The lead is a long way from featured-quality prose and will need a lot of work; I haven't read beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Those minor issues have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure Nikkimaria. I have tried to resolve the issues mentioned by the nominator of this FAR and pinged all the people involved with this FAR on 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC). SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm volunteered to do some spot-checks; HF did it on the FAR talk page. The minor issues raised were resolved. Since then, there has been no progress. I appreciate comments from anyone. Can you check the reliability of the sources and let me know if anything stands problematic? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Z1720: Would you kindly be willing to give the article a review and let me know what issues to work on? It appears that this FAR has stalled from last 45 days or so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Summoned here by the above ping: I did a copy edit of the article. Here's some notes:
- File:Rfk assassination.jpg's caption identifies Kennedy, but does not identify the other person who is prominent in the photo. I suggest that the person is identified.
- Done.
- File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif: I assume this is Sirhan's mugshot after he was arrested for this incident? If so, I recommend that the caption mentions this as such
- Done.
- I suggest alt text, per MOS:ALT, though this is not necessary to implement for my support.
- Done.
- The Assassination section is a little long, at seven paragraphs. I think level 3 headings should be added to split up this section.
- Done.
- I suggest that Kennedy's funeral be given its own section, to be placed under "Assassination". I don't think the funeral information fits with the Legacy section, and the Legacy section might be expanded, per below.
- Done.
- The "See also" section contains links to additional things that might need to be mentioned in this article.
- One is to Bobby (2006 film), which made me realise that there is no information about this event's depiction in popular culture. Should this be added?
- Well, our article on the film says: "The screenplay is a fictionalized account of the hours leading up to the June 5, 1968, shooting of U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy". (emphasis added). So it is not completely historically accurate. I think it should be in the "See also" section, but there is not much to write about the film in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- The other is the Kennedy curse. Does this deserve a mention in the article?
- I don't think so ... it is just a selective list of premature deaths/accidents in the Kennedy family. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- One is to Bobby (2006 film), which made me realise that there is no information about this event's depiction in popular culture. Should this be added?
- Those are my thoughts. Source checks, spot checks and image copyright checks were not conducted. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720: Thanks for taking a look. I have tried to address the concerns. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Additional comments below:
- Re Bobby 2006 film: I think that depictions of this event in popular culture should be included in the article. One depiction is this film, and the fictionalised details should be mentioned. Perhaps a paragraph in the legacy section can talk about this event in popular culture? Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Z1720, not an entire paragraph, but I tried to add some information regarding the film, as published in scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Darjeeling
- Notified: Dwaipayanc, SBC-YPR, Yashthepunisher, Chandan Guha, Ssbbplayer, Antoshurel, WP India, WP Cities, WP Nepal, noticed in March
As noted by RetiredDuke, the article has some issues with source-text integrity, spots tagged as needing citations, and some datedness, as well as significant MOS:SANDWICH issues and a generally excessive number of images. Hog Farm Talk 06:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC no/minimal progress (t · c) buidhe 05:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler: - I see some work has been done here, does it look like this one can be rescued in the course of a FAR? Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. Unless there is an active group of editors maintaining the page, it is impossible to maintain the FA status, even if it was well-deserved once upon a time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I had never really edited the article before I edited the lead a few weeks ago for coherence. What are the issues? Are they mainly citations? It looks like a nice, informative article. I don't see why it can't retain its bronze star. Are you willing to grant me the month of January? I don't know anything about the topic but I can fix the sourcing and the source-text integrity. Can I interpret the last to be poor paraphrasing of the cited text? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: - the main issues are a few citations needed, some spots where the citations don't fully support the text, and some spots where it looks like the material does not fully reflect recent stuff, such as the tourism section containing nothing after 2015. At least on my web browser, there's some layout issues in one spot, with almost an entire screen's view of whitespace between the climate subheading and the table. And yes, this can stay open as long as work is actively occurring. Hog Farm Talk 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take a stab at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hold in FAR, per User:Fowler&fowler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- About half of the images need to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler:, no progress since before your comment, shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- user:SandyGeorgia Please allow me until the end of the month, i.e. January. It's true I haven't thus far demonstrated the kind of energy I may have implied, but I do want to get around to fixing this article. It's just that I was waylaid by some others. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- No prob, just going down the list and checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Fowler&fowler:, for taking the initiative. I am extremely short of time, but will try to help in the process. I do have the book mentioned below (Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environments), but don't have the time to read and use it :( Thanks again, --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- No prob, just going down the list and checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- user:SandyGeorgia Please allow me until the end of the month, i.e. January. It's true I haven't thus far demonstrated the kind of energy I may have implied, but I do want to get around to fixing this article. It's just that I was waylaid by some others. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler:, no progress since before your comment, shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take a stab at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: - the main issues are a few citations needed, some spots where the citations don't fully support the text, and some spots where it looks like the material does not fully reflect recent stuff, such as the tourism section containing nothing after 2015. At least on my web browser, there's some layout issues in one spot, with almost an entire screen's view of whitespace between the climate subheading and the table. And yes, this can stay open as long as work is actively occurring. Hog Farm Talk 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This has been on my watch but about the remarkable depth of scholarship on the subject, lacking any mention in our article, consult Middleton, Townsend; Shneiderman, Sara, eds. (2018). Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-948355-6. I am acquainted with scholarship on the region to some extent - ping me, if you need help on something. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Providing references, inline citations. Sections towards the end of the article (culture, education) not done yet. Certainly needs more time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Dwaipayanc, happy to see you on this! Time is allowed at FAR as long as progress is being made. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I've begun to work on the article. Sorry, it has taken longer than I had thought, but I'm improving the pictures while I read the history and will start rewriting the history sections in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Dwaipayanc, happy to see you on this! Time is allowed at FAR as long as progress is being made. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Providing references, inline citations. Sections towards the end of the article (culture, education) not done yet. Certainly needs more time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
There is MOS:SANDWICHing pushed down into the third section of the article, caused by the excess of images in the infobox; perhaps lose a row of images in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
One edit in ten days; shall we Proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Sandy. Thanks for the timely reminder. I'm reading and making notes. I will start editing again in a day or two, starting with the history section. PS Please note that this is a vital topic. It is also viewed a lot. The article receives an average of 1100 page views a day. The recent TFAs on the other hand, have received an average of 50 (outside of the TFA day itself). If TFAs are a sample of what is coming into WP:FA, and if an article exists to the extent it has readers (some version of Schroedinger's cat), it means it takes three weeks of the inflow to match Darjeeling, and were it to constitute the outflow, something substantial would be lost (though I am by no means conflating popularity and vitality). To my way of thinking, this article is worth saving. My style of working is not linear. I don't know what else to say. Please allow more time. But please keep reminding us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per my analysis, we are in violent agreement, but please keep the work progressing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- :) Amazing, how similar. Will do. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- Per my analysis, we are in violent agreement, but please keep the work progressing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
There were some edits today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Active improvements still happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm updating the history with more modern sources. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update? Three months in, and the images in the article are at an alarming state of MOS:SANDWICH, making the article hard to read. Demographics (at least) are still outdated (I haven't checked other sections). And maintenance tags are still in place. Much more than History needs to be addressed here; F&f are you sure this is salvageable? Is there a plan for how/who/when to finish up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it very much is. Very sorry, but I was caught up with major POV issues arising from the Kashmir Files. Sorted out just this morning. All my attention will belong to that page. As for the plan, it should be done before the end of April, probably earlier. What if we revisit this April 15? If it is still in the doldrums, I will be the first one to propose the boot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, thanks (it's depressing to view the FAR page weekly and find a growing number of unaddressed nominations; at least having a timeline helps know which are abandoned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: I am not attending the History section or images (that is F&f's department); however, I am trying to take care of many other sections. As for demography, the data is actually not really outdated. The data from 2021 census is not available yet (census 2021 has been delayed due to the pandemic). So, the data there is the most recent reliable data, from 2011 Census of India. There is some data from 2001 census as well in that section, to give a comparative view. Once census 2021 data is available (perhaps in next 18 months), the 2001 data would be removed, 2021 data will be added, and 2011 data will remain (in a modified form) for comparison.
- OK, thanks (it's depressing to view the FAR page weekly and find a growing number of unaddressed nominations; at least having a timeline helps know which are abandoned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it very much is. Very sorry, but I was caught up with major POV issues arising from the Kashmir Files. Sorted out just this morning. All my attention will belong to that page. As for the plan, it should be done before the end of April, probably earlier. What if we revisit this April 15? If it is still in the doldrums, I will be the first one to propose the boot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I have tried to take care of most citation needed tags, updated sections such as civic administration, civil utilities, culture. . Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- That makes me feel better as I know precious little about the demography or civic utilities ... and have only recently boned up on the history. Thank you @Dwaipayanc: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also I will replace the maps I have added in the history section with fewer but more focused maps Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- That makes me feel better as I know precious little about the demography or civic utilities ... and have only recently boned up on the history. Thank you @Dwaipayanc: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I have tried to take care of most citation needed tags, updated sections such as civic administration, civil utilities, culture. . Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now April 15, could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria. The maps are done, which for me was the hardest part. The history section is moving along. And I have quite a few notes ready to transferred to the article. We not in the doldrums. We'll be done by April 30, and maybe before. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There is still a distressing amount of image clutter, and a gynormous infobox pushing well into the article, that contains lengthy text, a large map, and multiple photos. I haven't looked at content because of the visual assault effect from the infobox plus images. I assume this is still being addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- On my screen, it's awful with a giant amount of empty whitespace in the seismology section. As a note, there only seems to be freedom of panorama for sculpture, not 2D work, in India, so File:Proposed map of Gorkhaland, 2009, Singamari, Darjeeling.jpg may not be freely licensable. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The lead will increase in size, so the infobox will loom less large, relatively speaking. I'm using the local big boy for the model. Its lead is 400 words, compared to 250 for Darj. Part of the problem is that West Bengal, the Indian state in which Darj lies is thin and tall. I don't mind showing only part of the state but don't have a good feel for how others will react. Boston barely shows the Cape. Please give me something to model on. The image sizes are large only because it is easier for me to see them; they will be reduced to standard, thumbnails. The proposed map I'm happy to remove. In five minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd take a multi-factorial approach; lose the map in the infobox, lose one row of the images, and lose some of the content (postal codes, really, Wikipedia is not a phone book). We can't have it all, and don't need it all ... there is just way too much happening in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- :) I have no feeling (nor sympathy for the phone book). Just didn't want to step on toes. Will do Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Reduced image sizes in History. How do they look? The Geography bit I'm clueless about. I mean in the mechanics of displaying. Not sure why the year-round temperatures are needed, but they seem to be a common feature of city articles. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- :) I have no feeling (nor sympathy for the phone book). Just didn't want to step on toes. Will do Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm almost done with the British Raj section of history; the last two parags are not mine and will change. I have texts line up for the postcolonial history section which should be done in a couple of days. Eventually, once the text is in place, I'll make it a little less discursive, more encyclopedically deadpan. Beyond history, I have sources and some text lined up for the modern tea-industry in economy; flora and fauna; and food (the picture with the little obligate carnivore bottom left is my addition) I've never been to Darjeeling, though I have to some other parts of the mountain ranges South Asia is blessed with. Have to run now, but these comments are very useful, and welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd take a multi-factorial approach; lose the map in the infobox, lose one row of the images, and lose some of the content (postal codes, really, Wikipedia is not a phone book). We can't have it all, and don't need it all ... there is just way too much happening in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- The lead will increase in size, so the infobox will loom less large, relatively speaking. I'm using the local big boy for the model. Its lead is 400 words, compared to 250 for Darj. Part of the problem is that West Bengal, the Indian state in which Darj lies is thin and tall. I don't mind showing only part of the state but don't have a good feel for how others will react. Boston barely shows the Cape. Please give me something to model on. The image sizes are large only because it is easier for me to see them; they will be reduced to standard, thumbnails. The proposed map I'm happy to remove. In five minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: - I see you're still actively working on this - what's the status? It looks like, among other things, the referencing has improved and the layout is much better, although the school children image is making the references do weird things on my screen. Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am back. I will give it that one last spurt to restore the article's shine, including fixing the picture in the last section. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- How does it look? If it looks reasonable, I can do the spot checks rigorously and rewrite the lead to reflect the revised article content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I will also read through the article for prose issues (coherence especially) and fix them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- That was for @Hog Farm: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- F&f, I'll try to look at this at some point over the next couple days - I just got back from a rough work trip to the armpit of Missouri and need to get caught up on some stuff both on wiki and some more stuff for work. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- No problemo Amigo. I have fond memories of St Louis, from many years ago, but from a vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a native Missourian and for the most part love the state, but works always seems to drag me to some of the less-pleasant areas of it (although I have gotten to spend some time in the Table Rock Lake area, which is beautiful). Anyway, I've finally gotten around to leave some comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Darjeeling/archive2#HF. The history section looks much improved, although some of the other sections need a bit of work (including a few source-text integrity issues). Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies @Hog Farm:, I didn't see this earlier. First, thank you very much for the fine and very relevant comments. I have just taken a look and will get busy fixing them. Second, and to @SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria: as well, further apologies for my capricious and self-willed ways, but may I request the month of June? It has taken six months to accomplish what some psychoanalysts might call a transformation of narcissism, for the vanity that I can save something I know nothing about (beyond its supermarket tea bags) to give way to the better vanity that (beyond the tea and the tourism) this is interesting in its own right and I better make sure it is said. I promise this will not be a bottomless excavation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Update for FAR coordinators - active work is still ongoing here. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Hog Farm: I'll be done on the 30th of June. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies I forgot @Nikkimaria: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I'm not sure who the coords are, but replying to @Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, Casliber, DrKay, and Ealdgyth:,
- I'm done. It was a pleasure. I learned a few things about a topic
- I knew very little about. I hope the article has improved. I will now be taking three months off from WP, returning on October 1. If the India FAR could be held off until then, I'd be grateful. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's the 30th here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, thanking @Dwaipayanc:, my main collaborator and the original creator of this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to give it another read-through this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Hog Farm. @Dwaipayanc: could you address any issues raised by HF? I will not be logging in for the next three months, or at least holding out the prospect. Best wishes everyone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to give it another read-through this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Hog Farm: I'll be done on the 30th of June. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Update for FAR coordinators - active work is still ongoing here. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies @Hog Farm:, I didn't see this earlier. First, thank you very much for the fine and very relevant comments. I have just taken a look and will get busy fixing them. Second, and to @SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria: as well, further apologies for my capricious and self-willed ways, but may I request the month of June? It has taken six months to accomplish what some psychoanalysts might call a transformation of narcissism, for the vanity that I can save something I know nothing about (beyond its supermarket tea bags) to give way to the better vanity that (beyond the tea and the tourism) this is interesting in its own right and I better make sure it is said. I promise this will not be a bottomless excavation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a native Missourian and for the most part love the state, but works always seems to drag me to some of the less-pleasant areas of it (although I have gotten to spend some time in the Table Rock Lake area, which is beautiful). Anyway, I've finally gotten around to leave some comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Darjeeling/archive2#HF. The history section looks much improved, although some of the other sections need a bit of work (including a few source-text integrity issues). Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No problemo Amigo. I have fond memories of St Louis, from many years ago, but from a vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- F&f, I'll try to look at this at some point over the next couple days - I just got back from a rough work trip to the armpit of Missouri and need to get caught up on some stuff both on wiki and some more stuff for work. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- That was for @Hog Farm: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Fowler&fowler: - I see you're still actively working on this - what's the status? It looks like, among other things, the referencing has improved and the layout is much better, although the school children image is making the references do weird things on my screen. Hog Farm Talk 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates
- Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.
Acute myeloid leukemia
- Notified: MastCell, Tom (LT), Spicy, Mikael Häggström, Doc James, Роман Беккер, Boghog, Bibeyjj, SandyGeorgia, Ajpolino, WP MED, WP Molecular and Cell Biology, first noticed in 2021
Review section
Discussions on the talk page have noted signficant content issues including datedness; work has occurred but a fair bit still needs to be done and it's been stalled for some time. Its sad to see another one of our preciously few medical FA in this condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- As discussed on article talk, and with MastCell, this article is in quite bad shape. There are short choppy sections, the diagnosis section is impenetrable (even for a medical editor) and could probably benefit from being split to a sub-article and summarized back in prose reasonable for a layperson; a copyedit is needed (samples are colloquilisms like that said, most cases rather than referring to individuals, unnecessary use of subsequently, but there is much more); some sections use very dated sources (see Prognosis as one sample); pediatric AML is not discussed; and there are MOS issues throughout. There is an inconsistent citation style (see Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies or menstrual cycle for examples of how to clean up citations and provide page numbers). These are only samples; the article needs a thorough overhaul from an experienced cancer person and medical editor, and needs to be brought to a place where a layperson can glean useful information. Recent reviews need to be incorporated (samples only, PMID 32236160 and PMID 34615640, there is more). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, issues persist, minimal engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - significant work is still needed. Hog Farm Talk 01:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include currency, prose, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Order of the Bath
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, talk page notice 2022-04-25
Review section
This 2004 FA (last reviewed in 2006) has considerable uncited text (only some of which is tagged), missing as of dates, a listy lead, and some content that may be dated based on old sources used. Per the abundance of the use of the word today, a MOS:CURRENT review is also in order. The word also is often redundant, and often is here; there are other indications that a good copyedit is overdue, such as faulty punctuation throughout. Along with MOS:SANDWICHing, images should not be left-aligned when that offsets a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, issues persist. MOS:SANDWICH, listy lead, citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, much work still needed. Hog Farm Talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Anna May Wong
- Notified: User talk:Dekkappai, WikiProject United States, WikiProject California, WikiProject China, WikiProject Women, WikiProject Women's history, 7 May
Review section
Talk page notice:
The lead does not meet MOS:LEAD and there are sourcing issues. I'm not convinced that news articles from the 1930s are high-quality reliable sources when there are a ton of scholarly sources out there. Article can't be considered well-researched given that it doesn't incorporate the new 2019 scholarly biography by Shirley Jennifer Lim.
No improvement or response so here we are (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC No progress, comprehensive concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, no improvment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Coronation of the British monarch
- Notified: Lord Emsworth, Dr pda, Firebrace, Alansplodge, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, 2022-03-01
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as buidhe noted, there are several paragraphs and sections that are uncited. One source has also been questioned for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alansplodge has added some sources. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, still has considerable uncited text, and has not been edited since June 9. Moving to FARC still allows time for furhter improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC per Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 19:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist still has cn tags (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, cn tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist - some sourcing added in early June, but there's still a fair bit here that needs cited. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Battle of Dien Bien Phu
- Notified: Raul654, Eastfarthingan, DrKay, Chuntuk, Cliché Online, WP MILHIST, WP Southeast Asia, WP Vietnam, WP France, WP Colonialism noticed in March 2022
Review section
As noted by Indy beetle, this older (2006 promotion) featured article needs a bit of work to get back to up standard. There's a bit of uncited text, and I'm concerned that a few spots may represent original research, such as "The choice of de Castries as the local commander at Điện Biên Phủ was, in retrospect, a bad one." being cited to a contemporary newspaper account. This should be fixable, but it will need some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC No progress on the article. Reference section needs to be reevaluated as there are some refs that are not used in the article yet, while others are creating harv errors. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC; issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist Sourcing and phrasing concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references and for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist - sourcing needs improvements. Hog Farm Talk 04:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Bobby Eaton
- Notified: User talk:Ldblsatin, User talk:Renamed user a2vv12zt2i, User talk:JimHolden, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Professional wrestling, talk page notice 2021-06-02
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because those issues that Hog Farm brought were still not addressed yet. Notes: "Looking at this as part of the ongoing sweeps of older FAs, and I'm seeing some issues here. The material about going missing is uncited/failed verification and should definitely be cited per WP:BLP as possibly controversial. I'm not even sure if it truly warrants a mention. Wrestling-titles is listed at WP:PW/RS as "unproven", does this source meet the high-quality RS requirement for FA? Wrestlingfigs.com is cited at one point (publisher not in citation, its the "Here is a statement from Bobby Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published book cited (the CreateSpace one, CS is a self-publisher). It appears that Archeus Communications has only published books by Gary Will and I can find basically nothing about it online, which makes me wonder if there's really much editorial oversight going on with that source. A number of the book sources also lack page numbers, which is needed for verification. This needs significant work, and a featured article review may be necessary". There are also several unsourced statements. BloatedBun (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- What should be stated to be fair to the article is that a defense of the Will source was posted below my notice, and the linked RSN discussion indicates that it is a respected source. So it's a bit unfair to list the whole notice without noting that one of the sources has been strongly defended. My concerns about the various websites remain. Some issues still remain, but with Will & Duncan defensible, it is not in as bad of shape as had first appeared. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- And why wasn't McPhail notified? They're still active and are responsible for over 10% of the article's content according to the authorship tool. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize for boldly sending this article to FAR and not being specific. Besides the sourcing, there are several unsourced statements. If this is all resolved, feel free to make your own decisions. BloatedBun (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- And why wasn't McPhail notified? They're still active and are responsible for over 10% of the article's content according to the authorship tool. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The CreateSpace source meets the criteria for SPS. Mark James is an expert in the field, as noted in this article: [24]. This comes from Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) and explains some of his history in the business, including co-authoring autobiographies of Jerry Jarrett, Dutch Mantel, and Bill Dundee, as well as appearing as an expert on multiple series and documentaries, including WWE's Most Wanted Treasures on A&E. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I replaced the Kayfabe Memories sources. Most of it was replaced with PWInsider, which WP:PW lists as a reliable source. The specific author is Mike Johnson, who Bob Kapur of Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) calls "one of the most credible internet wrestling reporters in the world" ([25]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also replaced WrestlingFigs source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Haven't reviewed fully but there is a need to add citations, I have used cn templates to indicate where. starship.paint (exalt) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are still cn tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC an IP address has added content to this article, but the sources that were added were not of a high-quality. Other sources in the reference section also need to be evaluated and probably removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. The WP:LEAD is not. Inconsistent and poorly formatted citations. Absence of page numbers. Prose is borderline (samples: With Mr. Wrestling II and Magnum T.A. splitting up, the Midnight Express needed a new team to defend their newly won title against. ... Cornette had started his own wrestling federation, Smoky Mountain Wrestling (SMW) and welcomed Eaton with open arms. ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist - concerned about source-text issues here - not seeing "At one point during 1992, the Dangerous Alliance held every title except the WCW World Title, which was held by their main opponent and arch enemy Sting." in the cited source? Hog Farm Talk 02:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Original Stories from Real Life
- Notified: WikiProject Books, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2021-03-02, 2022-05-11
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about uncited text and original research. SandyGeorgia raised these issues on the article's talk page in March 2021, and the concerns have not been resolved. The original FAC nominator is deceased so I will not leave a notice on their talk page, and xtools says there are not other major contributors yet. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here's what I noticed:
- As a literary work, shouldn't it have a {{infobox book}}? Its omission is pretty glaring here.
which claimed that women should not be taught to reason since they were formed for men's pleasure
-- citation is mid-sentence, which I believe MOS disallows- [citation needed] at the end of the same paragraph
- [original research] tags all over the place
- Massive overquoting in "Illustrations" section
- "see the Blake archive for the different versions of Blake's illuminated manuscripts. Retrieved on 17 April 2007." -- is verbiage like this allowed in footnotes?
Definitely needs some work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, no significant improvements. Hog Farm Talk 04:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, improvements have not occurred. Hog Farm Talk 13:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist per the problems I found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist no progress on addressing issues raised above. Z1720 (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and original research. DrKay (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Roger Waters
- Notified: GabeMc, Burrobert, Popcornfud, WikiProject Pink Floyd, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject Music, WikiProject United Kingdom, April 2022
Review section
Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- The activism section should be rewritten. As you mentioned it is a list of disconnected events. Activism is a large part of his life now. However, it is rare for our green-tick sources to report on his (or anyone else's) left-wing activism because of the nature of those sources. Btw, there are warnings on Water's talk page stating that editors on the page must have over 500 edits and are restricted to two reverts per 24 hours. The editor who reverted your changes broke both rules. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed that the activism coverage isn't up to snuff. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. The activism section needs to be seriously trimmed. Also, I don't know why a bio article has the "Live band members" section and I think it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Don't move to FARC, fix the article. Can somebody tell me exactly what's wrong with the "Activism" section? I've gone through and trimmed it down and removed anything that was either questionably sourced (don't cite Fox News in an FA - jeez) or just unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:
- 2022 tour not mentioned in the article, this and other updating issues seem to still be present
- A longish further reading section raises suspicions that article may not be well-researched as required by the FA criteria. Ideally these works are either cited if relevant, or removed if not.
- SandyGeorgia, Burrobert for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- If "this source doesn't tell us anything new", it shouldn't be listed in further reading. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'll obviously leave the decisions to others, but be aware that The Visual Documentary covers Waters' solo career in more depth - and with more images - than The Music and the Mystery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:
- Move to FARC: apparently, trimming activism meant removing all mention of his controversial views on Venezuela. Odd, that; perhaps reduce paragraphs to one-sentence summaries instead. I suspect this article will be mired in POV for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Contrasting the approach taken to Rowling demonstrates the problems in sorting the POV in the activism section ... for example, we have Huffington Post as a source ... entire paragraphs on some issues, no mention of others ... what is the criteria for inclusion here? It's certainly not sourcing with things like HuffPost included, while Clarín (Argentine newspaper) is discarded. Also, I hope the prose in the Activism section is not representative of the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have/had the same situation at Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography, and those written are 20 years old. We opted for a very tight summary of Politics of J. K. Rowling, but I don't believe we completely deleted anything covered in reputable broadsheet sources. This article could similarly benefit from starting over with how the Activism section was worked by, a) establishing Politics of Roger Waters, then b) tightly summarizing the issues back to the main article, c) with cleaner prose and less quoting than what is there now, and d) without using sources like Huffington Post, e) and without eliminating sources like The Guardian and Clarin that cover his views on Venezuela. Roger Waters has vocally advocated controversial and unpopular stances in many areas; that warrants an adequate summary from a sub-article, rather than eliminating some of those views. At 5,000 words, this article does not have the WP:SIZE constaints that Rowling has, so it should not be as difficult to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to have been done in the past week or so. Should we move it to FARC again? blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 23:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't got the time to do the major work required to fix this article up to meet the FA criteria again, and looking at the history, nobody else has either. So I guess FARC is inevitable, but I also think this should serve as a reminder to exactly what we're doing to retain editors who can write brilliant content - all too often, they get scared away or blocked on trumped-up civility charges when they finally snap. It also doesn't really change my view that I think FAC is a fool's errand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, no improvement since move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist, more unsourced/poorly source content has been added since the move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delist additional, uncited information has been added to the article since its move to FARC. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yellowstone fires of 1988
- Notified: User:MONGO, Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather, Wikipedia:WikiProject Wildfire, talk page notification 2021-12-05
- User:Hurricane Noah, I have added the talk page notification diff for you; please be sure to add it on future noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous unsourced statements, grammatical errors, image stacking, needs alt text, lacks more recent academic literature on vegetation recovery and updates to fire management. NoahTalk 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Common decency should dictate that before an article goes to FAR, some time should be given to address any talkpage comments made; Hurricane Noah allowed near zero time for this to happen. With that said, and despite the overt rudeness of this behavior, I will address the issues in this article. I ask for clemency as to the timing as I will need 45-60 days to finish this.--MONGO (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hold in FAR per MONGO until 28 February at least, and then re-evaluate for ongoing progress and the possibility of a further extension. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hold in FAR per Sandy, to give MONGO a chance to tidy this one up. Hog Farm Talk 20:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- This article is being worked on, albeit slowly. It will take me another 45 days to restore it as many of the ref URLs are dead so have to go through them individually.--MONGO (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see MONGO has started in here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- MONGO could you provide an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- This article is being worked on, albeit slowly. It will take me another 45 days to restore it as many of the ref URLs are dead so have to go through them individually.--MONGO (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, it looks like MONGO has unfortunately gone inactive - where are things at here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is on my radar ... as soon as I can. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The first thing I started looking at was the uncited note 3 in the infobox (which is actually cited by source 2). In trying to fix that I see that:
- Article says: [26]
- Losses to structures were minimized by concentrating firefighting efforts near major visitor areas, keeping property damage down to $3 million
- Source says: [27]
- Estimated property damage totaled more than $3 million.
That's the first thing I looked at, and is a contradiction. I simply do not have time, due to IRL issues, to go systematically through the whole thing to see if updates have been completed and to check for source-to-text integrity; without further intervention from MONGO, MOVE TO FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @MONGO: Thanks for the update and improvements. There's an 'according to whom' tag in the final paragraph? DrKay (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Joel Selwood
- Notified: User talk:Boomtish, User talk:Allied45, User talk:Johnny Stormer, User talk:LM150, WP:AFL, WP:AWNB, WP:WPBIO, Notice from July 2021
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is out of date with very little information on post-2015 activity (subject is still an active player) Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
- Bumbubookworm do you have examples of what is missing, eg, with reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Joel_Selwood#2012–present:_Captaining_the_Cats - You can see there is one small para about the 2020 season at the end, but only one sentence is actually about him, and one sentence before that he reached 250 games in 2018. Apart from that, there is nothing on his activities 2016-19 and 2021. He is still a full-time player, you can see in the stats table that in these years, he played 20+ games as he had done in previous years (2020 was shortened due to COVID) and he was still productive; his stats in those years are similar to his career averages, and he is still the captain, eg he was also All-Australian in 2016 and 2017, so still one of the more prominent players in the league, but there is no coverage of these years. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC plenty of news stories just in the last year[28] interestingly a Guardian opinion piece declared that he was behaving "antithetical to AFL principles" in June 2021.[29] Not sure if this particular controversy merits discussion but I'm convinced the article has not been updated sufficiently. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC - post-2015 material is not properly fleshed out. Hog Farm Talk 07:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delist issues identified above have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 21:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Delist, zero progress on issues raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Hold, per Sportsfan77777.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Delist, no edits since October. Hog Farm Talk 15:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)- Hold in FARC – This is straightforward to save. It's just a matter of filling in five missing years. The rest of the article will be largely unchanged. I can work on it if no one else does. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777, no one has edited this article since 28 October. Do you have a timeframe for completing the work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll finish most if not all of it by next month. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- All right, strike again; but please do keep us posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'll finish most if not all of it by next month. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Delist, Sportsfan77777 has been actively editing, but has not edited this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)- Could we get an update on status here? Sportsfan77777? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Started working on it! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777, how are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I filled in just about all of the missing information, but I still need to proofread everything and fix some of the existing sourcing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777 - Have you been able to complete proofreading and fixing the original sources? Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay. I should have time to get back to it soon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777 - Have you been able to complete proofreading and fixing the original sources? Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
- I filled in just about all of the missing information, but I still need to proofread everything and fix some of the existing sourcing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Bumbubookworm: - any thoughts on the state of the article at this point? Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Slattery book is self-published. Does Slattery have any credentials for the topic? (This is a subject of which I have essentially no familiarity). Hog Farm Talk 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sportsfan77777@Bumbubookworm:@Hog Farm: Is the book actually written by Geoff Slattery? It's called an official souvenir, so I presume it's written by the team's PR department and published by Slattery Group Media. DrKay (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Slattery is probably fine. It looks like it's semi-official, the author is prolific in the field, as has written for the AFL itself. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Delist, source-text integrity issues. And there's still some uncited text in the 2009-2011 section. For instance:
- "During the off-season, Selwood was appointed as the national team captain of Australia for the 2014 International Rules Series against Ireland. Playing in the midfield, Selwood kicked one over in the lone test match and led Australia to a 56–46 win against Ireland. Winning their 20th test match against Ireland, Australia reclaimed the Cormac McAnallen Trophy for the first time since 2010" - I'm not seeing where the source supports the midfield or the kicking one over, or most of the last sentence
- "Selwood highlighted his consistency by gathering over 20 disposals in 21 of 24 games" - this is original research to a stats line
- "while in a round nineteen match against Collingwood he gathered a career-high 20 contested possessions" - no longer supported by the source, which may have changed formats because the title is now different
I haven't given this one a super-thorough look, but with this open for 7 months and this sort of issue still outstanding, I think it's time to consider delisting. Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: . Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll get to it. This was what I was referring to when I said "I still need to proofread everything and fix some of the existing sourcing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a timeframe for this? There's a certain point where it's more effective to delist and then re-submit to FAC so that FAR doesn't become completely bogged down. Given that it's been about 4 months since substantive work has occurred, I'm wondering if that point is being reached ... Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll make it a priority after I finish the current article I'm working on, so probably July. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a timeframe for this? There's a certain point where it's more effective to delist and then re-submit to FAC so that FAR doesn't become completely bogged down. Given that it's been about 4 months since substantive work has occurred, I'm wondering if that point is being reached ... Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Joan of Arc
- Notified: Durova, WikiProject Vital Articles, WikiProject Biography/Military, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject France, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Citizendium Porting, 2021-07-25
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing concerns and bloated sections. There are citation needed templates from 2017 that need to be resolved. Multiple sources have been added to the article since its FAC, and I am skeptical that they are of the highest quality and should be evaluated for their inclusion, especially because of the vast amount of literature available for this person. There are also some bloated sections such as "See also" and "External links" which need to be reviewed, trimmed or for the See also section moved into "Legacy". I also have other concerns, which I am happy to outline in detail if anyone is interested in working to fix up this article.
This article is of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, task forces, and working groups. If one is not listed above, please add them to the list and place a notification on their talk page. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've taken a stab at trimming See also/ELs, but have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like your trimmed version has been reinstated - FWIW I would consider it clearly better. Both cutting all of the see also links which repeated links in the article body per MOS:NOTSEEALSO and severely cutting back the general reference works in the further reading section are clear improvements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I've taken a quick glance at the book sources. I have doubts about Bloy 2021, as the publisher's website has a logo of an outhouse and describes it being the publisher for things that other publishers would refuse. Some of the source dates are also misleading - De Quincey and Gower are both given publishing dates in the 2000s, but they're really sources from the 19th century. This needs further attention. Hog Farm Talk 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking over it, the sourcing needs a lot of work - it doesn't look like it reflects the current academic literature etc. Generally, the article doesn't feel FA to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC article needs considerable work to be kept as a FA. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've begun supplying missing citations, and will continue during the coming days as time permits; I can also correct the other problems that have been identified. GBRV (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- GBRV, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is still uncited text, marginal sources highlighted by HeadBomb’s script, HarvRef errors, and multiple and inconsistent citation styles. And MOS:SANDWICH, which can be cleaned up if sourcing is brought to standard. Further reading either needs pruning, or those sources should be represented in the article, and External links appear to need pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- I’ve adjusted the images for MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM, but concerned whether some of the image captions are overly long or should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- There is still uncited text, marginal sources highlighted by HeadBomb’s script, HarvRef errors, and multiple and inconsistent citation styles. And MOS:SANDWICH, which can be cleaned up if sourcing is brought to standard. Further reading either needs pruning, or those sources should be represented in the article, and External links appear to need pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- Is http://www.stjoan-center.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Who is this author? http://www.stjoan-center.com/military/stephenr.html Also, since he provides a bibliography, could we not better consult the original sources ? The article also uses history.com, and a non-reliable newspaper reporting on info supplied by an auction house (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/joan-arc-ring-dating-back-15th-century-sale-london-auction-1535043) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- GBRV It looks like you've been doing a lot of work on this article. This article is huge. The good news is that the material is all there, though it looks like too much may be there. I prefer to stay out of the lead editor's way, but if at some point, you'd want help, let me know. Be warned: I'd want to move the whole thing to sfn format, sort the notes and the references, diversify and corroborate references. And of course, that probably means some editing too, though this article is fortunately already well developed. (Perhaps overly so?) It seems like you are on a roll, so I'll stay out of it unless you are open to the possibility. I think you'll probably get it in great shape. I would ask that if it remains at risk due to references, that you or the FARC team keeping an eye on it ping me and I'll pitch in before delisting. If I don't hear back, all is good, and I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do until January anyway... Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wtfiv I'll keep working on it, and can contact you if I need help. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- GBRV Sounds good. I started templating references and moving them so they can be separated out. There's two of them. But I'll stop for now until I hear otherwise. Feel free to revert what I've done. See my comments on the article talk page for what I did as well. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- FAR Committee, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- GBRV Sounds good. I started templating references and moving them so they can be separated out. There's two of them. But I'll stop for now until I hear otherwise. Feel free to revert what I've done. See my comments on the article talk page for what I did as well. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Wtfiv I'll keep working on it, and can contact you if I need help. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe If the vote now needs to run its course, I'll stay out of it. Otherwise, I'd like to give it a try to not have it delisted, particularly if the references are the big problem. My work would be slow until late January, but I would work at it in the interim.) I just don't want to tread on GBRV's work. Wtfiv (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Striking vote if there is a plan for fixing up the article :) (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- FARC team, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Striking vote if there is a plan for fixing up the article :) (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Buidhe If the vote now needs to run its course, I'll stay out of it. Otherwise, I'd like to give it a try to not have it delisted, particularly if the references are the big problem. My work would be slow until late January, but I would work at it in the interim.) I just don't want to tread on GBRV's work. Wtfiv (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Delist. There's still significant problems with the sourcing, including the use of primary sources, original research etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hold: Work is ongoing. You may ping me when the article is ready for review. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hold, plenty of active work underway. Please ping me when work is done and I will be happy to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
- I see Wtfiv is still quite actively working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- A minor suggestion for Wtfiv, who I'm thrilled to see working on this. It is probably worth briefly mentioning Schiller's The Maid of Orleans at some point in the article, in addition to (and mainly because of) the four operas it inspired by Verdi, Tchaikovsky and to a lesser extent Klebe and Pacini. Aza24 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Aza24 I think it would be great to get the operas in there! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Aza24 I didn't mention the operas and plays, as there is a separate article, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, with a huge list. There is so much art inspired by her story! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Wtfiv: you're doing a job of work on this, nice one! For the record, this is pretty much my area of specialism, so if you want a hand, let me know, and if there's anything specific I can get to without getting under your feet, I will—I've got most of the major scholarship. Happy New Year all! SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sandy Happy New Year!
- SN54129 Happy New Year to you too! Right now, I'm at the retrial section, as I'm working forward sequentially. Just let me know what you would like to do, and I can stay out of your way while you are working on it It looks to me there is a lot of work: Retrial, Canonization, Legacy, Visions, Cross-dressing all seem to need a lot of TLM (tender, loving maintenance). If you want to pick a section (and I have no problem handing off the "Retrial" section before I dive in deeper into the research- let me know and I'll stay out of your way. If one of us gets done a section and is ready for another, we can just message each other here.
- Also, if you want to edit any preceding section, please do. And, I can follow up with citation formatting as you complete sections, if you find it a hassle. Ideally it'd be great if all citations be linkable, but of course, that is just a preference on my part. (Verifying citation to text integrity- and assessing reliability of sources- has been one of the major issues.) Just let me know what you would like to do. Wtfiv (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just mentioning that the edits for the review are still underway. There's definitely headway, I think, but once more the progress may slow a bit, but hopefully its moving along well enough that it can remain part of the review process. If there is a concern, please let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Many editors are still working on this article and improvements are being made. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FAR committee, I think the draft sections in which I took on the lead role in editing (all but "Visions" and "Cross-dressing") are now ready for review. I am particularly grateful to GBRV for all the follow-up editing: patience as my aligning text to source modified much of the original story, opening discussion when needed, addressing issues of detail, cleaning up poorly worded prose, and the tireless copy editing.
- GBRV has taken on the lead role in editing the "Visions" and "Cross Dressing" sections and is still working on them. Once GBRV feels they are ready to go, and the FAR review begins, I'll be ready and available to address any concerns raised. Thanks for your patience so far! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Update: Many editors are still working on this article and improvements are being made. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead has a series of one- or two-sentence paragraphs which could probably be re-worked to four or five paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is fixed: merged post-Paris activities into one paragraph; combined religious legacy with cultural legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also merged all military activity up to the Siege of Paris into one paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - I see that GBRV has been sock-blocked. Hog Farm Talk 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- With a direct impact on the integrity of this article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Wtfiv how can the integrity of the article be checked? Is it only sections Visions and Cross dressing, or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Reading the Durova subpage, I happen to notice that both Williamson and Frohlick are cited in the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- @WP:FAR coordinators: just to make sure they see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129 you offered (above) to look in here; considering the recent development (considerable and decades old socking), your help may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is a 34-page PDF [30] of Williamson in Wirth.
- [unreliable source?] Williamson, Allen (2006). "Context". In Wirth, Robert (ed.). Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing (PDF). Joan of Arc: Primary Sources Series. Translated by Williamson, Allen. New York: Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies. ISSN 1557-0355. OCLC 61118807. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2006.
- The Academy for Joan of Arc Studies was incorporated in April 2005. Its president is Williamson with an address listed as Sartell, a suburb of St. Cloud (as established by Durova at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets). The registered office of the Academy is in Minneapolis at an address that appears to have been owned by Wirth. This may be a self-published source (as discussed at the community ban discussion, although the connection between the address was not made there). I have tagged it as "better source needed", although I first tagged it RS, mistakenly thinking it was a non-peer-reviewed journal. Considering the earlier stunt of adding a period on to the end of Durova's user name, to make it appear that she had made some edits, we should take care to establish credentials in these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is a 34-page PDF [30] of Williamson in Wirth.
- Reading the Durova subpage, I happen to notice that both Williamson and Frohlick are cited in the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- With a direct impact on the integrity of this article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Wtfiv how can the integrity of the article be checked? Is it only sections Visions and Cross dressing, or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- As an aside, I've still got quite a few problems with the content of this article, and it badly needs a decent copy-edit. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)I
- I'm away from my usual place dealing with personal issues, but can return to the editing around mid-week of next week. If the team is good with what I've done so far. Here's my perspective:
- I agree that Williamson and Frohlick are problematic. I'm careful about them because I also try to negotiate the concerns of other active editors.
- Removing Williamson is no problem. I too ha questions about the Williamson site. I put it in as a compromise with another editor who wanted to keep the issue about Joan's clothing preventing rape. IBut I did look the article over, and it seemed to me that it didn't misquote its primary sources. It's major contribution was the one about Joan's clothing, which I implicitly offered as a collaborative compromise for another active editor. Removing it, and leaving the issue in the "cross-dressing" section with the more reliable sources seems to me to be a reasonable solution. (But I do think there was a lot of Williamson's language in the original article, such as stating the retrial declared Joan innocent when sources state her trial was annulled, incorrectly calling the second trial an appellate court, and removing all language implying that the original trial had inquisitional powers and the suggestion that Joan was primarily executed for cross-dressing)
- I thought I minimized reliance on Frohlick. I just checked, and there's only one reference, accompanied with another source, Pernoud and Clin, who are acknowledged scholars who make a similar point. That said, Frohlick can be edited out with no problem.
- Except for the visions and cross-dressing sections, I feel the sourcing of the article is otherwise solid, though I have no doubt there is need for further editing. I am glad to begin the editing of those two sections, as I've been collecting sources on them and think that they need a great deal of work. I just wanted to make sure that GBRV had had the opportunity to edit first, as I want to ensure respect for the article. I'll begin working on these next week. (Though it means there'll be a lag before I start on the G. Fox article.)
- Finally, there is the biggest problem that I may not be able to address. I have no doubt that Hchc2009's point about copy edit is correct. As Sandy knows, I'm awful at copy editing. I leave a wake of errors behind in my editing. I get too immersed in sourcing and getting it right, and after hours of peering at prose, lose sight of the typos and grammos. That's where I particularly appreciated GBRV's critical editorial eye, even when we disagreed on interpretation and nuance.
My thought was once we get the drafting taken care of- which would be the cross-dressing and visions sections- the team comes in and makes all the needed suggestions allow the article to maintain its featured star. I'm open to whatever solution the team deems appropriate, though my own desired goal would be a solution that keeps the featured article status. To my eye, this seems straightforward if we complete the major revision on the visions and cross-dressing sections , remove the Williamson and the Frohlick (references, which is easy), and if the problems of copy-editing are not fatal to the articles integrity. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you are able to accomplish all of that, and if we don't have any socking interference, we should be able to round up people to copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- It seems to me that finishing up shouldn't be hard nor take overly long. Frohlick and Williamson are already deleted. (The Frohlick was just a reference to an image of Joan's signature, but it's not really needed, as it's already in the saint infobox.) That just leaves the last two sections. My major editing concern to date- and the part that leads me to work more slowly- has been ensuring that the project respects the perspective of all editors who felt passionately.
- What I do have concerns about is that many of the ancillary Wikipedia articles related to Joan of Arc topics that are linked in the article reference many of the same problematic sources and make many of the same (IMO) poorly sourced and, most likely, incorrect claims. But that's beyond the scope of my commitments. Wtfiv (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wtfiv this article is the mother lode, from which the unscrupulous would desire to derive hits. Please remember to keep Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Fox/archive2 updated, as to whether you can still work there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- I've updated the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. I think the article is now well-sourced and has a consistent format throughout. I have no doubt that there are egregious first pass (first public draft) copy edit errors in those sections. Still, please take a look and if you think the article is ready for copy editors, if it should wait until I do more cleanup, or if major concerns still remain. just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wtfiv this article is the mother lode, from which the unscrupulous would desire to derive hits. Please remember to keep Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Fox/archive2 updated, as to whether you can still work there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, a copyedit is needed, although most of the issues are minor typos, missing words or wikilinks, punctuation, and such.[31] @Hchc2009, Z1720, Serial Number 54129, and Aza24: I stopped after I realized I may be messing up the tenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy. Let me know when folks think the text and sources are up to FA standard and I'll happily give it a thorough review. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
FARC break
Hi Hchc2009, At this point, I think the sources should be pretty good. There's also more cleanup I'm working at (cleaning up residue of possible sockpuppeting, and cleaning up the "Background" section.) Also, I'll keep at the copy editing, which you had previously mentioned. Its not my strength and its a slow grind, but I'll keep at it to salvage the article. But my question for you, is when you glance at the article what are the major issues you'd still like to see addressed? If possible, I will do what I can to take care of them before you give it a more thorough review. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Buidhe, Z1720, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Serial Number 54129, and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding from your perspectives? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The number of footnotes is vastly excessive, failing the summary style requirement. Some sources such as Sackville-West, Victoria (1936). Saint Joan of Arc, Lowell, Francis Cabot (1896). Joan of Arc, Mackinnon, James (1902). The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy., etc., it's questionable if they are HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The lead is too long for optimal readability and should be shortened to meet MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yikes. There are 2,600 words in footnotes; that's an entire article. Wtfiv, how did this come to be ? I have to agree with the terms vastly excessive.
- SandyGeorgia Regarding footnotes: I've removed most of the Latin quotes taken from Quicherat. (The Latin quotes were added to ensure that uncited quotes were verifiable. Many quotes originally in Latin were being cited as English-language citation without attribution. This may be related to socking. And even some of secondary source cites are questionable translations when compared to the Latin original.) I've reduced the citations. I also removed a miscelleny of other footnotes. Using LibreOffice to verify, there are now 36 footnotes with a wordcount of 1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for Joyce come in 54 for a wordcount of 1,920. (If there is a WP tool for word counting footnotes, please let me know). So, I'd suggest this is no longer excessive, but FAR can decide this. (Personally, I like the footnotes, as they amplify controversies and interesting but subsidary points without detracting from the text.)
- Yikes. There are 2,600 words in footnotes; that's an entire article. Wtfiv, how did this come to be ? I have to agree with the terms vastly excessive.
- The lead is too long for optimal readability and should be shortened to meet MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- The number of footnotes is vastly excessive, failing the summary style requirement. Some sources such as Sackville-West, Victoria (1936). Saint Joan of Arc, Lowell, Francis Cabot (1896). Joan of Arc, Mackinnon, James (1902). The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy., etc., it's questionable if they are HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on the lead length; MOS:LEAD provides guidelines which, of late, have been (mis)interpreted as strict rules at FAC, to the detriment of some leads. As one of many examples of misapplication of what the guideline actually says, Modussiccandi's lead at L. D. Reynolds came into FAC at a perfectly fine summary of the article, which was damaged at its FAC, based on a misread of what the guideline actually says. I think the length about right here. The more important aspects of MOS:LEAD are that we provide a concise overview that summarizes the body and entices the reader to continue; nowhere does MOS prescribe as an absolute only a certain number of paragraphs or words. The lead is going to be the only thing someone like me will be interested in and it gives me what I need to know. I do see some words that can be trimmed here and there, but leave that to the prose masters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sample: She was captured by Burgundians troops on 23 May and afterwards exchanged to the English. She was put on trial by the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, on a charge of heresy ... could lose the date and three sentences in a row starting with she and later is implied/redundant ... something like ... Burgundians troops captured her and exchanged her to the English; the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, had her tried for heresy. I'm not a wordsmith, but this gives me the idea that word trimming and redundancy reducing may be in order throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Back on the question of 2,600 words in footnotes, as one example, why isn't this footnote just a source with a note or quote attached ? What is the distinction here between footnotes and citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- She was a warrior,[1] whose leadership helped restore the kingdom of France.[a]
- SandyGeorgiaThe Piccolimini quote was footnoted because an indirect quote. I tend to footnote supporting quotes (e.g., opinions, letters, trial transcripts, and indirect quotes); I tend to reserve citation template post-scripts to quote foreign text, which I try to tie to a linkable source, and provide an accompanying and verifiable English translation. Wtfiv (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- ^ The historian Larissa Taylor quotes Aeneas Sylvius Piccolimini, who later became Pope Pius II: "[Joan is] that astonishing and marvelous Maid who restored the kingdom of France".[2]
References
- ^ DeVries 1999, p. 3 ; Richey 2003, p. 6 ; Taylor 2009, p. 185 .
- ^ Taylor 2012, p. 240.
- I will look in tomorrow; I can only look at generalities, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. Could someone bribe Ealdgyth to at least glance over this one? Like, offer her a prize Arabian horse or something ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I understand editors feeling a need for topic sentences, but sentences like this leave me cold:
- Joan remains a major cultural figure.
It says nothing, and means nothing, and why "remains"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple instances of the also redundancy: for example:
- She is also a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.
The also is unnecessary; a review throughout would be helpful, with an eye towards Graham and Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Something is off in this sentence in the lead, which could also be trimmed:
- In 1456, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III investigated the original trial, which was found to have been by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.
- --> ?? --> Pope Callixtus III ordered an investigation in 1456, which determined the original trial was marred by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.
All in all, as Wtfiv asked/indicated above, a copyedit by a new set of eyes is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about a few sourcing bits here:
- " that she was secretly the half sister of King Charles VII" - is sourced to the original 1819 claim, which has been soundly rejected. (FWIW, Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc suggests the significance of this claim isn't that she was his sister, but that it would have made her a bastard child). A modern source should probably be used here, and if supportable by sources, the true significance of her being a bastard child should be mentioned.
- The alternative historical interpretations also cites the 1819 Caze as its first case. But the Joan article citation is more verifiable. The page number links to a freely accessible source, and the quotation in French is also directly linked in the citation, and a translation is offered in the citation post-script. The reference links to the freely available book in Google Books as well. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of the quality of "Russell, Preston (2014). Lights of Madness: In Search of Joan of Arc. Savannah, GA: Frederic C. Beil, Pub. ISBN 9781499040562. OCLC 1124448651." - Frederic C. Beil at least partially does something called "assisted self-publishing". What makes this high-quality RS if the publisher is dodgy?
- Egan is a master's thesis, what makes it pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
- What makes famous-trials.com a high-quality RS?
- Shouldn't de Pizan be in primary sources, instead of the online refs?
I have not done source-text checks (which should be done, given the socking in the history), nor have I checked to make sure that more than a couple of the primary citations are appropriate. Hog Farm Talk 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe and Hog Farm; between your comments and mine (prose, plus sourcing, plus source-to-text integrity check on a long article), I am getting the impression that bringing this article over the line is going to require a sustained effort from a number of us (similar to the surprise we got at J. K. Rowling, where we found bigger issues once we dug in). Z1720? Am I overstating the case? If this is the case, what is the plan? My prose is not good enough to do the copyediting on an article in this content area of this scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- My thought is that it depends on the results of the spot-checking. Of the sources I flagged, Caze (the 1819 bastard claim) is only used once; Russell 2014 is only used once, and for a historical backgroundstatement that should be easier to replace; Egan is only used once, and for a historical background statement; Linder is only referenced as a translation of the abjuration in a footnote in a spot that should probably be an EL instead of part of the footnote, so at least the one's I've flagged should be easily fixable. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- So depending on what Buidhe and Z1720 say, perhaps a spotcheck should be next, before attempting a copyedit? I'm concerned about that, as there are so many book sources. (I wish the Ealdgyth bribe had worked ... ) Am I correct that library access is needed to spotcheck here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia spot checking should be simple.
- I think every book citation links to a work that is freely available and verifiable. (Archive.org needs a registration).
- When possible, a page link is provided at each citation, so that the reader can just click it to verify.
- Just a note on citations. In addition, to showing consensus, multiple sources also provide differences of context and interpretation, which is fascinating to that very small percentage of readers who want to go deeper into the sources. Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would feel much more comfortable making sure the sources were right before fixing prose, since this article's socking history seems to go back some time. Hog Farm Talk 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- SandyGeorgia spot checking should be simple.
- So depending on what Buidhe and Z1720 say, perhaps a spotcheck should be next, before attempting a copyedit? I'm concerned about that, as there are so many book sources. (I wish the Ealdgyth bribe had worked ... ) Am I correct that library access is needed to spotcheck here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- My thought is that it depends on the results of the spot-checking. Of the sources I flagged, Caze (the 1819 bastard claim) is only used once; Russell 2014 is only used once, and for a historical backgroundstatement that should be easier to replace; Egan is only used once, and for a historical background statement; Linder is only referenced as a translation of the abjuration in a footnote in a spot that should probably be an EL instead of part of the footnote, so at least the one's I've flagged should be easily fixable. Hog Farm Talk 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- At this point, my editing on Wikipedia is much slower and more "catch as catch can". Though I'll continue to work on the article.
- buidhe I don't know what HQRS means, but I think it has to do with old reliable sources? Here's some background. Because the primary source is stable, most points in the older works have not been superceded:
- Lowell's work remains a good detailed summry of even older data from the perspective of a legal scholar.
- Sackville-West's work is a classic, which is cited throughout the literature. Though it must be used carefully, she often makes the strongest points about Joan's role as a non-traditional woman. And Sackville-West dug deeply into the literature. Sproles 1996 provides a good summary.
- More importantly, when I was working through the article, almost every statement I edited was challenged, so I wanted to make sure that each change could be verified and it wasn't the opinion of one source. Now that much of that issue has been resolved, I'm willing alter this. But the citations do solidify the article and challenge any future changes to the article to rely on cited sources. Please let me do what you suggest.
- SandyGeorgia The footnotes are vast because when working with GBRV, I wanted to ensure that the quotes were exact as most changes were challenged. Each change was challenged, and I wanted to make sure they were justified and cited. (As you can gather, at one point after finishing the biography, I was exhausted with making the changes and just handed it to the challenging editor.) But now, a great many can easily be removed.
- The sourcing bits seem fairly minor.
- Pizan can be moved to a primary source, though it is second-hand.
- I added Egan when I found it in my research. I have no issues about citing a well-sourced thesis. I like to lead readers to such articles. But it can certainly go.
- Preston Russell was an artifact of an earlier article (and the previous "Visions" section had an unattributed quote from him, too.) I didn't have the heart to remove Russell, given he recently died in the last two years. The book seemed informal but interesting and had citations. The publisher is a minor one, the citation is a minor one too. And it could certainly go if that's the consensus.
- Famous-trials.com just cites documents. I used it because it seemed to translate things accurately based on my research and is easily accessed. I may be able to find the documents elsewhere in the depths of archive.org, but it was convenient.
- Hog Farm I'd really appreciate somebody source checks! I have no doubt I've made errors along the way. I've caught and fixed a few myself, as I often click them repeatedly when editing. I do think, however, that the majority of errors made are minor. I'd appreciate those being addressed, since almost all are linked and I'd like them to be appropriate.
- I'd like to address why this article is where it is with so many footnotes (with exact quotes) and citations. Sandy and Hogfarm have gotten to the key of why this article is where it is. When I started, I was wondering why it was semi-protected. Then I've encountered my first deep-sock work in this article. My work has been an attempt to thoroughly vacuum out the socking. Unfortunately, even as I was working on the article, I had to thoroughly support each edit for an editor who seemed committed to the sock version. Every change had to be supported by multiple authors to ensure they wouldn't be softly reverted. (For example, the overly long footnote on Charles VII attempt to save Joan, when the overwhelming consensus is that no effort was taken.) I think I've scoured out the vast majority of socking related material. However, you can see that I did keep the points made via the socking if there were reliable sources to back it up. Usually this was done in the context of presenting it as one opinion amidst others. (e.g., the cross-dressing section). Though I'm not the best copy-editor, I went through each source and tried to verify it. Keep in mind that this socking may occur again. Having solid verifiable sources, and requiring them for new edits, seems to be the best tool for challenging future attempts, which seem decades old and will probably return again.
- This has started me on a secondary project. Although it is not directly related to the Joan of Arc article, I've been also working on Joan of Arc related articles (e.g., Trial of Joan of Arc,Retrial of Joan of Arc, Pierre Cauchon,Canonization of Joan of Arc). Most of the issues are related to content brought up in the investigations. Whether direct or not, much of the information is close to verbatim from same few articles and websites that are associated the sock-puppet investigations. Interestingly, these verbatim sources sometimes have English-language quotes with quotations marks for difficult to access sources in French.
- Frankly, this one has been a tougher haul than I expected given the complexities of the socking, but its been educational too! As always, my posts are far too long, but that said, I'm willing to continue to help out with this article as the FARC sees fit. Just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Feeling badly that you had to go through this :( All things considered, we probably should keep the footnotes, as the sock is persistent. Maybe just chip away at the prose for now? I'm socked in trying to wrap up some difficult issues at another FAR for at least a few more days, and always have my own list of socks trying to make my editing here a miserable experience :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, this one has been a tougher haul than I expected given the complexities of the socking, but its been educational too! As always, my posts are far too long, but that said, I'm willing to continue to help out with this article as the FARC sees fit. Just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The image caption's ref says "It is not impossible that this miniature comes from the collection of Georges Spetz" — but the image caption itself says "most likely an art forgery by the Alsatian painter Georges Spetz" — how is this an equivalent interpretation? Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Editing summary with respect to FAR concerns to date.
In Talk:Joan of Arc 25 July 2021, Z1720 raised the following concerns. This is how they've been addressed:
- There are citation needed tags from 2017 (Done: Most statements are cited. Almost all citations have live links, and are verifiable.
- Many Sources may not reliable. (Done: Almost all sources are WP:RS. Many, many have been added. A small number of these have been questioned by reviewers. I'm comfortable with them, but editors can remove them or others. Potential sockpuppet sites had already been addressed, and were trivial to remove.)
- References need to be standardised. (Done: all references are sfn)
- Sources in the "Further reading" section need to be evaluated, incorporated, or deleted. (Done: no further reading, all have been incorporated or deleted.)
- "See also" section is bloated and needs to be trimmed. (Done: See also has been deleted)
- There's no legacy section; see also could be incorporated (Done: Legacy section added.)
Sinking into reality noted in the same section above:
- Used French sources, not English (Addressed: There are still a small handful of French sources when English source is not available, but they are linked and verifiable. A translation of text is provided.)
- Reduce reliance on Pernoud. (Done: Pernoud's three books are still major resources, but the article no longer relies on it.)
In the delist discussion above, Hchc2009 mentions issues with:
- Primary sources (Done: there are few primary sources in citations (e.g., Aquinas may be one, but is appropriate to support paraphrase). Most have been moved to footnotes when used.)
- Original research (Done: there was a bit of this due to the sock puppet issue, these have been removed and statements now have verifiable citations.)
Other issues:
- Questions about the lead. (Addressed: It try's to summarize the article. Thank you SandyGeorgia for suggesting the lead appears adequate, and for your suggestions.)
- Questions about the number of sources. (Addressed. This article, and other Joan-related articles has misrepresented through unverifiable sourcing. Now nearly every statement has a citation, and often multiples. Everyone of these had been worked through by me, except for a couple by GBRV, which I verified after they were added. Spot checking these might be worthwhile though. I'm sure I made some errors.)
- Footnote length (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920)
- Sock puppet issues. (Addressed: I think almost all have been caught by using verifiable references.)
- Unverified claims and original research has been removed.
- I've kept a number of points advocated by the sock puppet if WP:RS also support the point. But the points have usually been reduced to one perspective among others. Sock puppet sources are not used. (The three sources questioned are not part of sock puppet investigation. As mentioned, they can be removed by editors having doubts.)
From my understanding, the remaining issues raised are trimming and copyediting. (Ongoing: trimming and copyediting will continue for a while.)
Otherwise, I'm thinking the major concerns that triggered the FAR have been addressed? (Though, there is always more for editors to do!) Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:FIRST: ". Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Can the other names she is known by be moved out of the first sentence, to the end of the first para? What a mess of clutter in the first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some/many people will read only the first para ... a big leap is made here that omits the British and leaves the impression the French killed her: "is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War. She was convicted and burnt at the stake as a heretic, but her conviction was later overturned." Adding something about captured and transferred to British would help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Curious about why all Saints are not linked here, and why Baudricourt makes it into the lead ... " later testifying that she had received visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her request to see the king was rejected twice, but eventually the garrison commander Robert de Baudricourt relented and gave her an escort to meet Charles at Chinon." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- What does successive add here? ") after the successive deaths of his four older brothers." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sentence in first paragraph on Joan's death added L'Origine du monde on 6 April 2022. Seemed like a good addition. Just edited it slightly by adding "by the English".
- SandyGeorgia
- I just deleted the name and nickname items. La Pucelle is mentioned in the article with references. Maid of Orleans is not mentioned or cited in the text, but if you feel it is important we could move it to the Early Legacy. I can find a reference somewhere. Just let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it out.
- There's a footnote on why the saints are not linked. They were linked in the past, but this is one of the times the suspected sock puppet was right: Joan never specified which Saints were Margaret and Catherine. I looked it up. Many scholars assume it is Margaret of Antioch and Catherine of Alexandria. See Sullivan, 1999, pp. 88–89, who is cited in the footnote. There are links in the footnote too. But, if you prefer to link them in the main text. Let me know. Both options make sense: one is slightly more accurate. The other gives readers context.
- Baudricourt was there when I arrived. It's a critical point in Joan's story, but I agree Baudricourt shouldn't steal the lead limelight. Baudicourt is out of the lead now.
- "Successive" is gone. Wtfiv (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed the article and made some MOS changes. Overall, I think this is ready to keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-Joan-reviewer comment) Imho, 'Maid of Orléans' should absolutely get a mention; it's more than a nickname as we would recognise it, it had a deliberate double symbolism; Maid, emphasising her virginity, and Orléans, where the French resurrection began. It's not a modern invention of lady novelists either; a little known French writer called Voltaire wrote a lengthy poem in 1796 called La Pucelle, or, The Maid of Orléans. Great stuff it is too—draws a direct link to the rebellion of Joan against the English with the sans culottes] against the French crown. Á la lanterne, aristos! :) SN54129 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- SN54129, I added a sentence in her early legacy, mentioning that she was called the Maid of France. During her life she called herself La Pucelle, but Pernoud and Clin mention that the first literary mention of Maid of France is in 1630. The Voltaire is mentioned in the cultural depictions of Joan article. I usually think of his work in the context of Schiller's play, which stikes me as a kind of romantic response to Voltaire's vision. Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, on sourcing. There are several curious omissions; Allmand's HYW is of course great, but his Lancastrian Normandy is specifically on the Henrician period; Crane's article on the significance of clothing ditto, but she later expanded her thesis into a full-length work, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War; surprised not to see anything from René Ambühl on the 15th C. period of the wars; and not forgetting, of course, L. J. Andrew Villalon's trilogy. Yet, Vita Sackville-West is an appropriate source while Anne Curry is an external link?! SN54129 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- SN54129 I replaced two Crane article citatons with citations of her book. The book is later and adds a bit, but the article is strong because it is more focused. The sources I used were used because they are reliable and can be verified by link. I didn't attempt to cover the vast breadth of the Joan bibliography, though some reviewers may feel the references is already too large. Do feel free to add any other citations you'd like to the article. I would ask that if at all possible, it'd be great to pick sources that can be link verified. This article had previously been subject to a number of citations that didn't make the claims given to them.
- As an aside. Sackville-West keeps getting critiqued. Perhaps because she is not an academic historian. Yet, she was careful in her biography and research, going through the source material and amply footnoting. The academic literature responds to her work respectfully, though as usual questioning some of her point of view, and it strikes me as well written. If editors wish to delete her, I think it could be done without too much impact to the article. So please do so, if you wish. But I think her biography provides an enriching perspective.Wtfiv (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm, Buidhe, and Hchc2009: Any outstanding issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
From my side, although the article is much improved on its condition last year, I think there's still quite a bit to do to meet FA standards:
- The text is well below FA standard. Even just in the lead, we have phrases like "is considered a heroine of France" (considered by whom?); "Nearly 500 years after her death," - why force the reader to calculate the approximate date?; "Her request to see the king was rejected twice" - who is the king at this point? Presumably not Charles...; "Charles sent Joan, who was about 17 years old," - why tell the reader her age at this point?; "She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429" - does the exact day of the month matter for the lead?; and so on. Similar problems throughout the main text, which needs a serious copy edit.
- Heroine falls out of her legacy role explained in sections below: she is seen a symbol of France, a saint, a martyr, a heroic women. All cited. However, please feel free to substitute appropriate word for "heroine".
- 500 years changed to "Four hundred and eighty-eight".
- Joan's age is emphasized to remind readers of her youth at the beginning of her role. Please delete if not seen as appropriate.
- Specific dates are given to show the speed of Joan's Orlean campaign: 29 April to 16 July. Please delete if not seen as appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The lead correctly notes that the first trial was politically inspired, but it doesn't pull out that so was the later investigation - as the main text highlights, the second investigation was politically orchestrated by Charles (for the opposite reasons to the first!)
- I'm not sure where the lead directly addresses the political issue. It does mention that Cauchon was pro-English. If that is problematic, please delete. I didn't catch anything else, but please reword any other sentence in the lead that states trial was political. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The term "peasant family" in the lead is a tricky one. It is correct - it refers to the family's place in the feudal landowning system - but for many readers "peasant" is the same as "poor"... and Joan's parents were, as the main text says, relatively well off. Well worth avoiding the term in the lead - it will be misinterpreted.
- As mentioned, "peasant" correctly describes family's status. The main text qualifies their status within this class by pointing out how Joan's family was in the higher echelon of the village. But if the connotations of the word "peasant" in the lead is seen as having the potential to mislead readers, please substitute an alternative word. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Alleged relics" section title - several problems with this. The content of the section doesn't actually mention any religious relics, and suggests that the ring might be genuine - in which case "alleged relic" is a bit pejorative.
- "The accepted version of Joan of Arc's life has been challenged by revisionist authors." - this needs a citation that the authors then listed are considered revisionist. Is it even worth discussing Case's views from 1819, btw?
- Some "current voice" statements need checking for dates. e.g. "She is the topic of thousands of books." is cited to a work in the 1961. That tells us something about the state of play in 1961, but we're now sixty years down the line in 2022. Might still be thousands, or could be tens of thousands, or might be that no-one writes books about her any more (OK - we know that last one isn't correct, but you get the point...!)
- The 1961 citation supports the statement that she is the topic of thousands of books as of the time of the citation, which remains true. The more current 2014 Cohen citation in the following sentence reinforces and extends the point other media. However, please feel free to remove the sentence about the books if desired. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned about the reliance on Sackville-West, and whether it meets the criteria for still being a high quality source (as opposed to Sackville-West being referenced in current high quality, fact-checked works - which is a different issue.)
- The article does not rely on Sackville-West in an essential way. Many Wikipedia articles reference biographies by authors who are not necessarily professional historians but are published by major houses. In addition, the references to Sackville-West mentioned in the article discuss the care of her research. discuss how she researched and sourced her material. There's no question it is an older citation. In my opinion, Sackville-West functions like the work of Thomas Carlyle's. It provides an interesting, readable alternative narrative of Joan that relies on the research, is accessible to interested readers, is historically interesting in its own right, and provides a somewhat different perspective on Joan. Yet, these citations can be deleted without major impact to the article if there is a consensus of opinion that Sackville-West's work does not merit consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Frederic Harrison's "The New Calendar of Great Men" - what is the justification for this being a high-quality reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy etc.? Particularly when you read the quality of the text... (NB: the bibliography says that the work dates from 1920; the link goes to a volume that says 1892).
- Link fixed for Harrison, Swinny & Marvin. Now goes to 1920 version. Citation is also supported by Chenu 1990. Both sources support point about Joan being seen as a martyr for her faith. But please delete the whole clause "and her faith" and its citations if you feel the sources don't make the case strongly enough. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Captions on the images vary considerably and need some work: some give the location of painting, others don't; some make statements that need a source, etc.
- I disagree about the footnote concern(s). Many big-topic FAs are full of footnotes, which are an effective way to provide extra information without ruining the text continuity—I also don't see how removing information is productive in any way. There is nothing in the FA criteria that aligns with this complaint. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Buidhe's and SandyGeorgia's original footnote concern was addressed March 30, 2022. Previously to that time, there were 58 footnotes (wordcount ~2,600). Many were exact quotes from Quicheret's Latin text to address sockpuppet concerns. There are now 36 footnotes (wordcount 1,398). For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce 54 (wordcount 1,920). The remaining footnotes are meant to amplify controversies and interesting, but subsidiary points without detracting from the text. Please delete any that are considered irrelevant or uninteresting. Wtfiv (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just realized that I forgot to save a recent edit of the Joan article that made some of the changes to the article mentioned in the above statements. The changes in response to the comments above have been added to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
"Creative psychopathy" is a very concerning term vis-à-vis this article
I feel it pronounces judgment upon what this visionary and creative genius was expressing by calling her psychopathic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am extremely well-versed in DSM-V symptom descriptions and diagnoses, and I feel that it is unfair to her character to call her a psychopath. I suggest removing it entirely. I'd love comments before I do so, just to make sure I'm onto something here. The myopia of Western scientific thought as like, the ONLY way Wikipedia tends to operate, means that her uniqueness doesn't get a chance to be subjectively interpreted, which is the purpose of visionary art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anktrumpet (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is sourced and balanced by the follow-on sentence. DrKay (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with DrKay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)