Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. 1. Raise issues at the article's talk page In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here). 2. Featured article review (FAR) In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. 3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC) An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere. Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows: No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator. Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews

Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt

Notified: NSR77, Grim-Gym, Burnedthru, Zmbro, WP Red Hot Chili Peppers, WP Alternative music, WP Albums, noticed in May 2021

Several of the sources in the article would not be consider good enough for FAC now - top40 is an about.com site and probably not reliable, invisible-movement.net is not RS, Dicogs is user-generated, and feelnumb and Los Apson look questionable. Additionally, rockinfreakapotamus is a fansite/fanzine of questionable reliable. There's an entire paragraph of uncited material about recording after the track listing. While personnel can usually be assumed to be from the album cover, but because it lists several "uncredited" people involved, I think that those can't really be assumed to be from the album cover. Finally, the VPRO interview is a WP:COPYLINK violation; the audio clip needs to be shortened per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples and currently lacks the contextual significance needed, and File:JohnNiandraLades1994.jpg has a very weak non-free rationale. Hog Farm _Talk 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Chicxulub crater

Notifications

Notified: WikiProject Geology, talk page notification (none given) Noting for User:Hemiauchenia the additional notifications to: WP Mexico, WP Astronomy, WP Dinosaurs, WP Extinction, WP Palaeontology SandyGeorgia (Talk) I will also notify (from the tools) these editors who have been recently active on the article Peter M. Brown and Vsmith (User:Hemiauchenia please note that the goal of FAR is to cast a wide net to hopefully bring in editors who may be interested in improving the article, hence the FAR instructions encouraging the use of the tools). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I have also notified User:Iskander1317, who has made some recent substantial contributions to the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC) All set now (when you notify on your own behalf, you don't have to add your name to the subst, by the way). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Hemiauchenia, please notify the other WikiProjects listed on the talk page and major contributors such as the FAC nominator. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) The FAC nominator has already been notified. None of the other Wikiprojects are really relevant as far as the article content goes. Feel free to notify the other projects and major contributiors as you see fit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Hemiauchenia the notifications have not been completed. I was setting up to do them for you, but there are bigger issues with this nomination. First, there was no talk page notification of a pending FAR. Second, when you added the FAR to WP:URFA/2020A, you might have noticed that David Fuchs had indicated a willingness to work on this article. And yet, Fuchs is not noticed. Did you ping them before the nomination? My recommendation would be to put this nomination on hold if David Fuchs is still intending to work on the article, so for now, I have not completed the missing notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Also, when you do a FAR nomination, please use the subst'd suggestion in the FAR instructions, which helps assure that interested editors understand the process when arriving here. (See my addition here.) In this case, you can notify by adding the following, with a heading, on relevant pages: {{subst:FARMessage|Chicxulub crater}} ~~~~ The FAR instructions also tell you how to use the tools to locate interested editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC) David Fuchs does not WP:OWN this highly trafficked article that he worked on over a decade ago. I am the author of a substantial proportion of the articles current content. The whole idea that a non FA quality article should be kept at FA because somebody made a vague promise to work on it is silly. Either it is FA quality or it is not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Hi @Hemiauchenia:, the goal of FAR is to find editors that are willing to bring FAs back to FA standards, similar to how your edits earlier in January brought the article closer to FA standards. The talk page notice in step 1 is to find out if any talkpage watchers are willing to bring the article back to standards. Informing Wikiprojects, even if they are not really relevant to the article, is important because editors who watch those Wikiprojects might be willing to improve the article. Can you ensure that the Wikiprojects are notified? If no one steps forward to improve the article, then it might be delisted, but I think the delisting process won't start unless Wikiprojects are notified. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I wish Hemiauchenia had followed FAR standard practice so I'd have had a heads-up before this, not to mention following basic courtesy and notifying me when filing the FAR rather than me having to hear about it secondhand. As is, I'm not going to be able to access my research databases for the next few weeks but should be able to work on it after then. Wretchskull also expressed in interest in working on the article, so I don't think it makes sense to close down the FAR over procedural missteps, though I hope Hemiauchenia can learn to be less needlessly confrontational and more collaborative in the future. A more detailed list of areas that need improvement beyond a single question of energy values and references to recent literature would help in focusing on areas of improvement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC) David Fuchs if you are suggesting the FAR remain active, the remaining notifications will need to be done. If you prefer the Coords put it on hold to give you a few months, you should say so, and then the remaining notifications won't be neeeded, yet. Please let this page know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Nikkimaria SandyGeorgia I'm fine with it staying open. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I did, in fact, make a post on Fuch's talkpage after I was notified, notifying them of the nomination, which automatically pings them. I was unaware that a post had been made on his talkpage discussing the article the exact same day I nominated the page, my apologies. This article receives thousands of views every day, those "few months" likely mean hundreds of thousands of readers, this article should be a priority. I intend to notify the other Wikiprojects in due course. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I have now notified all relevant Wikiprojects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I cannot locate the small error that resulted after notifications were not done; don't know how to fix this now, so I have removed all smalling. Notifications are now done, but I will leave fixing of the bulk now on this page to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Commment - Isn't this only supposed to be opened after issues are brought up at the talk page of the article? Step one at the instructions says "Raise issues at the article's talk page... Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review". I think this might be premature. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC) I did bring up some issues on the talkpage of the article three weeks ago Talk:Chicxulub_crater#Unreliable_sources. Nobody responded. My intent for calling for a FAR is a kick up the arse to get the article into shape. I don't want to see the article delisted. I just want it to actually be FA quality. I am happy to put the nomination on hold for a few weeks if that helps the article get into shape and prevents delisting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

History of Minnesota

Notified: Elkman, Mcb133aco, Rjensen, WP Minnesota, WP US, WP US History, talk page notification 2020-12-06

This is a 2007 FA that has fallen out of standard, mostly due to lack of updates. The list of issues on talk is a year old, and includes sourcing issues, MOS matters, datedness, lack of comprehensiveness, and some boosterism. The article has good bones, so it would be a pity for it to be delisted, and hopefully someone will address the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, at 11,000 words of prose size (around 50% more than the version that passed FAC), there is a real need for some pruning and trimming of content to make better use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 27 January 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)

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. Noah^Talk 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)

Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre

Notified: User talk:Yomangani; WT:CGR; WT:ROME; WT:HIST; WT:SPORTS; WT:HOLIDAY; WT:FESTIVALS, talk page notification2021-12-31

This article (2007 promotion) is predominantly sourced to ancient writers who, as the article explains, are considered to be of questionable reliability; modern scholarship is cited only sparingly. That's a problem for several reasons: it means that the article lacks the high-quality sourcing required by the criteria, but it also opens up the article to original research and synthesis issues. For instance, statements like "[Dio's claim] conflicts with the work of Eutropius" can't just be cited to Dio and Eutropius: secondary sources are needed to draw that sort of contrast. There seem to be further issues, for instance with reference formatting, but the sourcing (which has already resulted in the placement of an orange cleanup banner) is the primary problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist. Has to be rewritten. T8612 (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No examples of modern scholarship that should be used are given, either here or on the talk page notification. The talk page notice is only three weeks old, and the cleanup banner was placed the next day by an IP. T8612, please see the FAR instructions; delist or keep are not declared in the FAR phase; FAR is not for automatic delisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have either of these, but from a quick search I'd be looking at The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Roman World (with chapters on "The Colosseum" and "Theatres of Cruelty: Games of the Flavian Emperors" looking like plausible starting points) and Blackwell's A Companion to the Flavian Age of Ancient Rome ("Flavian Spectacle: Paradox and Wonder" looks promising). Also possibly A Monument to Dynasty and Death: The Story of Rome's Colosseum and the Emperors Who Built It by Nathan T. Elkins would be worth looking at – it is apparently written for a general audience but is recent (2019!), gets a decent write-up in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, and looks as though at least it has a decent chunk of notes/further reading to mine. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks; that is the kind of information that should be provided in talk page notifications of pending FAR, else we are perceived as, or become, an automatic delisting page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ideally it would be, yes. I only came across this as a result of this FAR, however! (On further reflection, I'm also struck by how the article uncritically treats De Spectaculis as a description of the inaugural games when Coleman's 2006 edition/commentary, which is cited, begins its introduction "all that one can say with moderate certainty about this book of epigrams is that it comprises an untitled collection of uncertain length celebrating a series of unspecified occasions in honour of 'Caesar' (unnamed); and it is attributed to Martial". Given there's a whole subsection on sources, this is the kind of thing which should maybe be discussed!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again for providing direction for article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit

Notified: Angmering, Hammersfan, IJBall, Ian Rose, DrKay, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject United Kingdom, diff for talk page notification 2022-01-02

Eighteen years after the article's FA promotion in 2004, the article has issues, which I previously raised in the article talk page—e.g. overly long plot synopsis, episode list containing no individual episode synopses, sourcing, and insufficient updates. So far since I raised my concerns, no edits have been made. Furthermore, the article is listed in WP:URFA/2020A as the oldest remaining un-reviewed FA to this date (unless there are other articles from earlier years still tagged as FA). Improvements were discussed and (probably) made long before I raised the issues. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. These are weak complaints. In particular, the "plot synopsis too long" and "no individual episode synopsis" complaints make no sense taken together. The article's author clearly thought it was better to explain the plot in one continuous section rather than 6 split-up sections, which is a valid stylistic choice and not a "problem". "Insufficient updates" - you can't just say this without clarification. Is there post-2004 material that you feel is extremely important to include? What is it, if so? For sourcing - it seems that the nominator is simply complaining that there isn't a citation after every single sentence. But that's a style only used for extremely contentious topics; I presume that the references are more like covering an entire paragraph. The article looks fine to me. Finally, you gave all of a month for responses on the talk page, and it wouldn't shock me if there weren't any partially because this complaint is so vague. As nominator themselves note, the article was given a look in late 2020 and seemingly passed. There's a fansite used as a reference twice, but one is for a quoted interview, and the other for the mere existence of a stage play that is backed by another reference, so seems harmless to me. Nominator should clarify the issues more specifically or this FAR should be closed IMO. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Striking out my vague points. If the article is not outdated, then I must have worried over nothing. Same for the sourcing part. I brought this here because I couldn't tell whether the article still deserves to hold its FA star after all the years, even with improvements made last year. Also, I thought my language is implied, but I guess I should be more thorough or clearer or something next time I either take an article to a formal review or nominate it as FA candidate. Still, I'll try to clarify the part about the plot and layout: are readers wanting to spoil themselves expected to read the Plot section or the Episodes list... or both? It's hard for me to tell which plot points occurred in which episode. Also, without episode summaries, it's hard for me to know whether the storytelling is either simple or unusual like Pulp Fiction or 500 Days of Summer, though they're both films. Also, I wonder whether the article needs newer or older reviews and analysis, especially for an older series like this. If not, then I must have gotten worried over something that hasn't existed yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and my comments at the talk page to this date received no replies. It's not because they're "vague" or anything like that. Probably because the talk page has been semi-active or less than that, AFAICS. Also, some of the article's editors are either banned (e.g. Eric Corbett) or no longer active. That's also why I brought the article here. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are many ways to write a good article. If you prefer moving plot summaries into episode summaries, that's valid, but it certainly isn't required. "Storytelling style" is something where it's assumed there's a "normal" chronological order of events unless stated otherwise - movies / TV series that pointedly play with temporal perspective will say so, otherwise you can safely assume it's not Pulp Fiction. See Jaws (film) for a FA example wherein the reader can safely assume that the movie depicts the events in the same order as the plot summary - I presume the same is true in Quatermass and the Pit's plot summary, that the events proceed in the order described from episode 1 to 6. Not that complicated. (I suppose, for the sake of pedants, some occasional markers could be stuck in the plot summary to indicate end-of-episode cliffhangers and the like, but that's a very minor request, SOFIXIT material not FAR material.)

  For "newer or older reviews" - well, I see contemporary reviews from 50s newspapers, a quote from a 1988 retrospective, and quotes from academics in the 2000s who've covered it, and a 2012 list from the BFI. Seems like a decent range of chronological reaction to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Close FAR without prejudice for renomination. Nominator admits he's "not sure" above whether this article even qualifies for FA standards; IMO, there's lots of old FA articles that are clearly currently below modern FA standards, so there's no need for FARs of "eh maybe it qualifies, maybe it doesn't" that are just asking a question. FAR can be reopened if a future nomination cites more serious problems. SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  A diff to the full talk page notification might have been more helpful; SnowFire, are you able to lend any information re SPS on that source? IF we could establish whether the authors of the fan site meet WP:SPS, issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  Disclaimer: I'm not a Doctor Who expert nor a BBC expert, and haven't seen this particular production. So I may not be the best judge here. That said, it seems like Doctor Who Restoration Team is notable enough to have their own article and be given BBC access, and Mark Ayres has a (thinly sourced) Wikipedia article. They seem like "experts" on this particular matter at least. I'm not sure if they meet the letter of SPS as far as being published by someone else, but apparently Ayres's article claims the BBC let him contribute commentaries on the restoration of old BBC stuff, and that's... vaguely in the right area, I guess? I think they can be used, but I'll grant it's a borderline source that probably shouldn't be used for anything seriously controversial - but it looks like it's largely used for remastering minutiae, so no big deal. I went ahead and removed one bit of minutiae that had been marked cn in the cleanup, and changed a ref on the VHS / early DVD releases to Revelation Films (which nobody seems to care about online) to a published book instead. So the DWRT is still used, but only for the explanation of 50s style telerecording and VidFIRE, which I think is valid as that's their area of expertise. Do you think that's sufficient to be within SPS grounds? Or in favor of playing it safe and cutting the parts still ref'd to DWRT?

  As discussed on the talk page, the other questionable source, "The Quatermass Home Page", isn't really used as a source itself, but more as a repository for an interview with Nigel Kneale, so it's really Kneale being cited, so I think that's good IMO.

  I also added a reference on the Blu-Ray release. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the diff, your edits looks god good and must have been improvements. Still unable to access the book online, but I guess it must've been reliable more than the ones you removed. As you said, there are no more remaining issues at this time, including no more questionable sources just by looking at references list, so I guess the review shall be closed... unless I overlooked something else. --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC); fixed, 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I could be wrong about "absence" of serious issues. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, SnowFire; you come to the same place that three other editors who looked at the article ended up a year ago; that is, in my view, there is borderline but benign use of an SPS here, but nothing rising to the level of needing a FAR. But now we have a FAR, so people need to opine. I don't think the minimal use of this borderline source warrants either delisting, or removing the text. Others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm pretty thoroughly meh on this one. Agree with Sandy that the minimal use of a borderline source isn't a big deal. Aside from the potential that Newman 2014 could be used a bit more, I'm not seeing much that's really absent here. Not our greatest FA here, but I'm also not seeing anything that really warrants delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 00:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure if you saw it already, but I worked in some more Newman 2014 after checking it out at the library just today. (On the downside, despite approvingly citing it above in the FAR, I also removed the 1988 Sunday Times quote because upon seeing the fuller quote in the older revisions, it seems pretty clear it's actually not talking about this serial at all - it cites a different year and a different plot. So whoops. But fixed now.)

  I think it's basically fine as is, per above comments, so would be leaning "keep". Ideally somebody checks the "bonus material" on the Blu-Ray edition that came out and see if it has slightly-more-citable material on the production than old GeoCities fansites, but I don't think I'm going that far, and I don't think it's crucial to maintaining FA status. (Also, if some brave soul does watch the Blu-Ray restoration version, I'd be curious to hear if the psychic mobs really are murdering people without Martian genes... the impression I get from Newman is that at least in the movie version, it's more generalized chaos and EVERYONE is afflicted by ancient Martian experiments, just some people are better at controlling it than others. But maybe the serial was different.) SnowFire (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  Can anyone think of a UK editor to ping in here? I’m also in meh territory here; seeing it on the mainpage would not cause me to hang my head in shame, although it’s not our finest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

SnowFire I’m not sure what we’re looking at here, but if that’s an WP:ELNEVER (link to a violation of someone else’s copyright), it has to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• • I had assumed that was an interview done by someone affiliated with the fansite, but looking more closely... it's by Andrew Pixley but he isn't credited on the front page of the archived fansite, so probably not, you're right they're just hosting it then. Searching around for Pixley's name, it seems he's written some inset booklets for other works about Kneale example, although this may not be the same booklet, as it was from a release years after this fansite was made, unless they re-published an old interview)? So it's probably a real interview but I'm not sure how to even cite it, because it's citing "some material from an unknown release of Qatermass pre-2004". Clearly we need an emergency WMF grant to import a Blu-Ray... any volunteers?! SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Same problem here: I can't tell if they did the interview, or if they are hosting a copyright. I got a free t-shirt from the WMF, but I gave it away. And I don't know how to turn on my TV, much less operate the Blu-Ray that my sons left here. Gotta find another for that! I would not like to delist an article over such minor issues, but we just haven't gotten answers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

    Found out that Region-B Blu-ray release has special features, but it's incompatible with other Blu-ray players outside Region B areas. The series is available only on DVD for Americans and Canadians (and Bermudans?) at this time. Blu-ray.com doesn't explain much about one DVD release itself. However, able to retrieve info about the DVD release, which turns out to be... barebones. Furthermore, according to a back cover via Amazon (and ebay), another Region-1 DVD release is also barebones. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

My Belarusy

Notified: Z1720, Zscout370, SUM1, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Songs, talk page notification 2018-08-18

Glide08 please use {{subst:FARMessage|My Belarusy|alt=My Belarusy/archive2}} ~~~~ to notify the list of parties and pages above. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I have completed the notices. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to be lacking information behind the history of the anthem and the process of its creation and doesn't delve much into analyzing the anthem's lyrical content and music (for example, no mention is made for the allusion to the motto Long Live Belarus! in the chorus, despite the fact that its inclusion is anathema to the Lukashenko's government policy of Soviet nostalgia in state symbols). Glide08 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: On the talk page in December 2021, I identified issues of comprehensiveness, particularly the creative process and development of this song and no analysis of the lyrics and music. Glide08, as a subject matter expert, has identified the specifics of what is missing, which I think is beneficial if an editor wants to bring this back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Christopher C. Kraft Jr.

Notified: MLilburne, WikiProject Spaceflight, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Virginia, Pritzker Military Library WikiProject, 2021-12-21

I am nominating this featured article for review because much of the prose is cited to the subject's autobiography and those citations should be replaced with secondary sources. There is also inconsistent citation formating, short paragraphs and some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Avery Coonley School

Notified: Nasty Housecat, Moni3, WP Schools, WP Illinois, WP Chicago, WP NRHP, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education, noticed on 2022-12-23

This is a 2010 promotion that hasn't really be updated since not long after promotion - curriculum is described as of 2009, technology material is from 2010 (and technology in education has changed massively since then), extracurricular activities is sourced to only stuff from 2010 or before, the student body and finances section is largely badly outdated, etc. This one will need a complete overhaul to still meet the criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 05:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

George Fox

Notified: AlexG, DrKay, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject England, WikiProject Religion, 17 Dec

I am nominating this featured article for review because of Extraordinary Writ's talk page comment a month ago. The issue is that the article is not well researched or comprehensive due to over-reliance on self-sourcing at the expense of scholarship into Fox's life. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this analysis. Sourcing can't be slacked on, especially for a FA. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Swarthmore, Haverford, and Pendle Hill have published a wide-variety of books on the subject and it looks like nothing from any of them used. Those publishers are just from Friends General Conference and don't even cover the points of view of the more conservative Central Yearly Meeting of Friends. The legacy section in particular is lacking since there are still Friends around the world. (COI note: I am a Quaker) --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters

Awadewit, WP Books, WP Women writers, WP Women's history, talk page notification 2021-11-29

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained. I added cn and or tags almost a year ago that have gone unaddressed, and Buidhe mentions on talk new sources that should be incorporated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

SG review

Buidhe listed three sources on talk; one appears not to be high quality, and best I can tell, the other two have nothing new to offer. They have been added to Further reading, but I question their usefulness at all.

There are several sources in the Bibliography that aren't used at all; they should be moved to Further reading or removed. (Converting to sfns will make it easer to locate errors like this one.)

Czar has been working on this article, such that the tags have been removed, but that does not make it out of the woods. The nominator's early FAs had original research, uncited text and synthesis; without having access to the sources, it is hard to determine if that is still present here, although the instances I tagged have been resolved. There is a lack of attribution of opinions and quotes in several instances. A spotcheck of Sapiro would be the most helpful, if anyone has access to it, particularly pp. 13 and 239, and Jones, Literature of advice. For examples, these passages:

• "Much of the book criticizes what Wollstonecraft considers the damaging education usually offered to women: "artificial manners", card-playing, theatre-going, and an emphasis on fashion. She complains, for example, that women "squander" their money on clothing, "which if saved for charitable purposes, might alleviate the distress of many poor families, and soften the heart of the girl who entered into such scenes of woe".[4]

  This is all cited to one page of the book (primary).

• In her later works, such as A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), Wollstonecraft repeatedly returns to the topics addressed in Thoughts, particularly the virtue of hard work and the imperative for women to learn useful skills. Wollstonecraft suggests that the social and political life of the nation would greatly improve if women were to acquire valuable skills instead of being mere social ornaments.[5]

  This is cited to multiple sources; are they saying she returned to this book in her later works, or is Wikipedia saying that?

• The section "Genre: the conduct book" is generalized; are the sources sufficiently connected to this book in particular or is there synth? This sentence goes off topic: "Typical examples include Bluestocking Hester Chapone's Letters on the Improvement of the Mind (1773), which went through at least sixteen editions in the last quarter of the 18th century, ... "
• This sentence says "a few scholars", but cites to one only. Is that source citing other scholars? Who are they? "More recently, a few scholars have argued that conduct books should be differentiated more carefully and that some of them—such as Wollstonecraft's Thoughts—transformed traditional female advice manuals into "proto-feminist tracts".[17] These scholars view Thoughts as part of a tradition that adapted older genres to a new message of female empowerment, genres such as advice manuals for women's education, moral satires, and moral and spiritual works by religious Dissenters (those not associated with the Church of England).[18]"
• Is this according to the sources, or to Wikipedia? "Yet at the same time, the text challenges this portrait of the "proper lady" by introducing strains of religious Dissent that promote equality of the soul. Thus, Thoughts appears to be torn between several sets of binaries, such as compliance and rebellion; spiritual meekness and rational independence; and domestic duty and political participation."
• Is this according to sources, or to Wikipedia? "By the end of her life, Wollstonecraft had been involved in almost every arena of education: she had been a governess, a teacher, a children's writer, and a pedagogical theorist. Most of her works deal with education in some way."
• This very short article contains some very long quotes from the book.
• Is this according to the sources, or to Wikipedia? "Wollstonecraft assumes that the "daughters" in her book will one day become mothers and teachers."
• ... she writes, perhaps describing her own experiences ... looks like Original research; what source supports it?
• Sources or Wikipedia? "While she does not break with the tradition of encouraging resignation in response to unideal circumstances, Wollstonecraft draws on religious tones in the Dissent tradition, that resignation can be pleasureful or sublime."
• "Wollstonecraft even agrees with Rousseau ... "
• Unattributed, mentions multiple scholars, but sources to one: "Although some scholars have argued that there are glimmers of Wollstonecraft's radicalism in this text, they admit that the "potential for critique remains largely latent"."

A spotcheck for original research and synth is needed; hopefully someone has access to the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Czar are you planning to work further on this? I got access to three books via archive.org, and original research and source-to-text concerns are borne out based on that spot check; I am concerned we will need access to all sources to check this article. I can type up the issues I found later (iPad typing now). Do you have a means of accessing other sources? I added the archive.org links to the sources on those I found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Finally returning to this, I was able to access three books (Kelly, Poovey and Sapiro) by borrowing the books on archive.org . Based on those sources, I am able to strike one (above, the sources I could access do generally describe the book as a "conduct" book). But I found the following (sample) problems (from this version):

• I am able to ascertain that I have the correct version of Kelly because this quote:

  The ideal woman in Thoughts is, as Wollstonecraft scholar Gary Kelly writes, "rational, provident, realistic, self-disciplined, self-conscious and critical", an image that resembles that of the professional man. Wollstonecraft argues that women should have all of the intellectual and moral training given to men, though she does not provide women with a place to use these new skills beyond the home.[28]

  is found on page 30 as indicated. The first sentence is fully verified. I did not locate support for the clause "though she does not provide women with a place to use these new skills beyond the home". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• These two sentences are sourced to page 31 of Kelly:

  By developing a specifically bourgeois ethos through genres such as the conduct book, the emerging middle class challenged the primacy of the aristocratic code of manners.[15]

  Perhaps someone can borrow the book via archive.org (free registration) and show me where that is verified on page 31; the language is erudite and perhaps I'm just missing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Wollstonecraft's feminist critics charged that the masculine role for women that she envisioned—one designed for the public sphere but which women could not perform in the public sphere—left women without a specific social position. They saw it as ultimately confining and limiting—as offering women more in the way of education without a real way to use it.[15]

  Ditto for above; I'm not finding this on page 31. Perhaps that is because I don't speak this language, and it's somehow there but I'm missing it.

• This text is cited to Kelly page 34, along with Richardson, page 26.

  One critic said that the text reads as if it were simply trying to please the public.[38]

  I don't find anything like that on page 34. Perhaps it's in Richardson.

I found similar with the other two sources I examined. Poovey is listed as a source, but not used. One difficulty here is that text is often cited to bundled sources; that is, one statement may be cited to five sources. But when I'm able to check one, I find none of the text supported by the source. Every instance of Sapiro is bundled with other citations, so having Sapiro alone isn't helpful. To be able to get this old work to standard requires access to all the sources listed, because of how statements are cited to three four and five sources in one. In summary, I find some source-to-text issues (which I wish someone else would look at), and I don't think it possible to determine if the problems I found with Kelly are pervasive without getting hold of all the sources, and in particular, Jones, "Literature of advice", which seems to be the backbone of the article's sourcing. Sadly, unless someone with access to sources is willing to look in here, I fear it will be moving on to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, perhaps the sources Buidhe listed can be sued to fill in the blanks; one of them does offer a critique of this work that could be incorporated, given the difficulty accessing other sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anna Laetitia Barbauld/archive1, the review of these 2007 promotions (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thoughts on the Education of Daughters) was not strenuous. Ealdgyth was to being source reviews some time after these promotions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Woodruff

Notified: User talk:Cool3; WT:BIO; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia; WP:AWNB; WT:MED; WP:NZWNB; talk-page notice (2021-12-18)

I have significant concerns about this 2006 promotion, most notably with respect to sourcing. The article directly cites Woodruff's autobiography far more than I'm comfortable with, but more importantly it relies very heavily on various tributes by Peter Morris, who, by his own admission, knew Woodruff "quite well professionally" and "obtained considerable information from" the aforesaid autobiography. As such, the grand majority of this article is sourced either to Woodruff or to his friends—hardly the sort of high-quality sourcing that the criteria demand. Additionally, SandyGeorgia has kindly added several additional sources to the further reading section: the fact that none of them are cited in the article raises comprehensiveness concerns as well. Since neither these issues nor the additional ones mentioned in the talk-page notice (e.g. formatting and original research) have been addressed at all, it's worth considering whether the article should retain its current status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC – there unfortunately hasn't been any engagement. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, nothing happening. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cliff Clinkscales

Notified: TempleM, WP Bio, WP National Basketball League of Canada, WP College basketball, WP Basketball, WP New York City, noticed on 2021-12-09

Bio of a sportsperson that has been allowed to fall really out of date. As noted by the RealGM source cited in the article, Clinkscales was still active through the 2019-2020 season, and was even awarded third team all-NBL Canada honors in that last season. Yet there is basically no information for these seasons, and his stats table hasn't even been updated. He's also an assistant coach, rather than a player, now. That source linked for his coaching career beginning also states why his playing career ended. Additionally, there are some smaller sourcing problems sprinkled throughout - "As a junior, Clinkscales regressed statistically" is original research based on interpretation of stat lines, and referring to a couple specific single-game performances as "notable", but sourcing them only to stats-only box scores. The #2 editor in the authorship list has not been notified because their contributions solely consists of a massive IABot run. Hog Farm _Talk 21:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I see Rikster2 has updated that he is now a coach. Would they be interested in updated the playing career as well? Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, which does not preclude additional work. It's been close to 2 weeks since the article has been edited, and there hasn't been updating besides the addition of the new role as coach. Hog Farm _Talk 20:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC necessary updates on this BLP and active athlete have not been made yet. Progress has stalled. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Numerical weather prediction

Notified: Thegreatdr, Titoxd, WikiProject Weather

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements in a couple of areas (most of it was removed by DrKay), has grammatical errors, outdated references, outdated section coverage (ie history since 1990s), and is lacking more recent scholarly literature. Noah^Talk 16:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah another FAR by same nominators just moved to FAR within the last 12 hours; we should take care not to overburden nominators with back-to-back nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I nominated another because one of the FARs ended. Noah^Talk 17:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but that was a different nominator (Hink v thegreatdr). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear Tito has been active in almost a year's time and thegreatdr since May last year. It's really upon the project to take initiative to fix the articles in these cases since the nominators are not available to do so. Keep in mind that thegreatdr nommed the other article and tito nommed this one. Noah^Talk 17:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah, update, status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC No progress. Noah^Talk 21:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, per Noah. Regretfully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, nothing really has occurred to address the issues. Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica

Notified: Mahanga and 13 others, WP Deserts, WP Protected areas, WP Russia, WP Antarctica, WP Climate change, WP Geography, ‎talk page notification 2021-11-29

I am nominating this featured article for review under the "comprehensive" criteria, because although some work has been done it seems there are still things which need fixing - for example whales and toothfish mentioned at Talk:Antarctica/Archive 3#Funk's look at biodiversity Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned copyediting, sourcing, and cleanup needs in the 2021-11-29 notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up as many of the issues raised by User:SandyGeorgia and User:FunkMonk as possible, but there's surely more if anyone's willing to take another look. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Have done a bit of copyediting, but there's surely more if anyone's willing to take another look. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Just noting I'm keeping an eye on the edits, and happy to help with the climate and sea ice sections. Femke (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the images and the duplinks (now mostly sorted) as well as the sources, the latter needs more work on formatting, etc.. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be happy to help with source formatting—though it is a bit concerning that there aren't more book length surveys used (and the ones that are used and hardly cited). Aza24 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Agreed, now wading through the books and journals cited to format them properly, with a view to using the better ones more than they are at present. I'd like to move across to Harvard formatting at some point. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchell125 (talk • contribs)

I would warn against moving to harv formatting for an article of broad interest. For climate change, it's been an utter horror, having to explain to new and intermediate (and many experienced) users how their contributions need to change to be compliant with FA criteria and always having to change the formatting into harv. Femke (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Femkemilene, but that's not been my experience with FAR. Once the swap over is made (a large job for one editor, but not too difficult), it shouldn't be too big an issue. Citing the same book with different pages (something I can see being done here to improve the citations) is a lot easier for me, and maybe others, if the harv system is in place and there's a list of Sources in a separate section. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

I'm mostly struggling with shoehorning scientific papers and news articles into the harv style. Books are of course fine :). Femke (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think harv formatting for the books is a good bare minimum. I get Femke's reservation, but if we do it for the articles we can get a better view of the article's current state. Anything without page numbers might be too messy to use harv fmt for. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The way I do it is to use the pages of the papers and to omit newspapers since they are seldom the best source available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how harv formatting deals with citations without an author byline, can it represent them adequately? Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In climate change, we put the newspaper in there rather than the author for all news articles cited. Messy and time-consuming. Newish editors get confused. We're now transitioning towards non harvnb for journals and news articles.

That said, the transition to sfn was helpful to get a better sense of sources, and prune less reliable ones out, like Aza said. Femke (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Will do the move to sfn for books next week if nobody objects, and have mentioned this in the talk page. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 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)

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)

The Well of Loneliness

Notified: buidhe, DrKay, Celithemis, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Women's History, diff for talk page notification 2021-01-19

Issues concerning the article were raised one year ago, like possible original research, unverifiable info, inadequate coverage, writing quality, and sourcing. Since then, some improvements were made, but they happened within one month after the discussion last year. Subsequent edits were just cleanups or tiny content changes or something else.

Please note: I've not notified editors who've been inactive for more than one year, who made edits for a very short time, or who made minor edits. You may do so if willing to. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please at least notify the now-inactives, as even if they are not able/interested in returning they may have talk-page watchers who could help. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Talk page watchers"? Seriously? Besides Celithemis, which inactive editors please? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I notified Celithemis, but did not find anyone else active enough to notify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

George Ho, when you do the notifications, please use the subst’d message listed in the FAR instructions; otherwise, newcomers to FAR show up without an understanding of the two-phase process, and start entering declarations. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

George Ho update/status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Realmaxxver has been working on the article since the FAR was brought up. There have been some improvements, but I'm unsure whether the issues are addressed. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Making another comment hours later: If you want my opinion, here it is: Realmaxxver's edits, despite being layout and tone improvements, did vey little to address the issues. I compared the pre-FAR revision to the current one, and the article's almost the same, despite the layout changes. I hope my vote is implied, right? --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Although there have been improvements, I still see non-cited content, inconsistent refs, and other issues. I quickly removed some instances of original research and unrelated content that I found but the article probably needs a more thorough search for such issues (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

As I see, you removed non-free images. I applaud the effort. However, the US copyright of File:The Sink of Solitude.gif and of File:Radclyffe Hall - Sunday Express.gif will expire on January 1, 2024, at least ninety-five years after their own first publications, i.e. two years from now, so I would like to reinsert them both by that time. Nonetheless, the UK copyright of the Solitude drawing is still intact until 1 January 2055, seventy years Beresford Egan's death. That neither is nor will be Commons-eligible for now and by then. On the contrary, the UK copyright of James Douglas's article must have expired already for more than a decade. (Saving this diff and that diff...) The File:Children of Loneliness.jpg I would request un-delete in 2034, twelve years from now, as the film was supposed released in 1937 (or 1935?). (Saving this diff...) No comment on other edits for now, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my. Realmaxxver you have partially converted the citations to sfns, but not completed the job. See WP:CITEVAR re changing citation style, which I’m not sure you should have done, but if doing it, it should be completed. We now have mixed citation style and harvref errors everywhere. Buidhe could you identify what text is uncited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

Notified: Mav, Hike395, WT:VOLC, WP:CAL, WT:GEOL, April 2021 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's April 2021 notice, there is substantial uncited content in the article, failing 1c. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be able to find some time to resolve the uncited content issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What is "Rockland Ash"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This ash layer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s mentioned in image captions but never in the article … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, if you plan to work on this, I suggest switching it to sfns to help resolve the awkward notes in the source sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the current citation style isn't really good. Mostly because it's not really consistently applied, mix of citation templates and not, different name sorting and such. I personally like and use sfn, but I would support any change that makes it consistent. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus since you are doing the heavy lifting, I would be willing to do the sfn conversion, if that’s the way you want to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

So far I have only added references to all paragraphs, so currently the uncited text issue is IMO resolved. Nothing about updating, source formatting etc., though; geology in this specific region isn't something I am particularly well-versed with. I think a change to sfn would be warranted only if we began to use paginated sources, but that would imply a root-and-branch rewrite of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Like many (most?) of the National Park articles, this article uses very old, archived versions of NPS/USGS pages (that have probably been updated and need to be checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've begun doing some of the work and I have to ask, what's our stance on using text from USGS verbatim? I know they aren't copyrighted but they are ancient and a lot of the article relies on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite typical for the older National Park articles. It is similar to what we see in the Cyclone articles. In the very earliest years of FAC and FAR, when the emphasis was on building the ‘pedia, it was not unusual for FAs to mimic public domain sources. I am not aware of any consensus discussion regarding WP:WIAFA that allows us to demand that public domain text not be used, but we must make sure it is attributed. (Of course, there could have been a discussion that I either missed or have forgotten. I have a vague memory of a FAC discussion about whether FAs should be represent Wikipedia’s “own work” getting bogged down and going nowhere at FAC.) Although I suspect articles that were mostly public domain text would be rejected at FAC today, I don’t believe we have a criteria-based argument for doing that. The problem here, though, is that the public domain sources (NPS, USGS) have been updated, while our article has not kept up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've done a huge citation cleanup, and converted to SFNs.[1] I noticed that we are using a 1997 version of Harris, Tuttle & Tuttle, which is now on its 7th edition. Rockland Ash is still mentioned but not defined. I cannot judge whether the article is outdated or comprehensive: Jo-Jo Eumerus ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is reasonably comprehensive, but as said above this isn't a part of the world where I am well versed with geology. I'll see if some editors who have written volcanoes in the region know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Update? Bumbubookworm this is your nomination; how does it look to you now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I've seen a 2019 USGS report (should be public domain) titled "California's Exposure to Volcanic Hazards" from 2019 that has information about hazard assessments for Lassen in there. Would that document potentially be useful? Hog Farm _Talk 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it might, will need to check tomorrow. I suspect that it talks more about Lassen Peak than Geology of the Lassen volcanic area though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C.

Notified: Qwghlm, ChrisTheDude, Mattythewhite, Hashim-afc, Madshurtie, Ed g2s, Footieedit, WP Football, WP England, WP London, talk page notice 2020-12-11

This is a 2005 FA that was last reviewed in 2010. As noted a year ago on talk, it has image layout and MOS:SANDWICH issues, sporadic uncited text, and breaches of MOS:CURRENT and a lack of context on dates throughout. The star looks saveable to me, if someone will do the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've done some image pruning/rearranging. I'll try and find some time to look over the other points..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

work progressing, these empty sections should have some sort of prose summary:

• Former players

For a list of every Arsenal player with 100 or more appearances, see List of Arsenal F.C. players. For record appearance and goalscorer statistics, see Arsenal F.C. records § Player records.

• Club captains

Main article: List of Arsenal F.C. players § Captains

• Player of the season

Main article: Arsenal Player of the Season Award

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

All addressed. I will also continue to look at the other points raised here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please ping me when you are all done and ready for a new look, quite busy at another FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude update ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia sorry, forgot all about this. I will try and take another look today........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Spain

Notified: User talk:Raystorm, User talk:KLO2015, User talk:Panda2018 0, User talk:Drachenfyre, User talk:Jedi Friend, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Law, talk page notice 2021-11-28

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page statement, I do not think that the article has been sufficiently updated to incorporate recent research and new information on the topic, as detailed on the talk page. For example, there is currently no explanation why Spain was one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage (8 years earlier than neighboring France). Therefore I do not think it currently meets that FA criteria of "well-researched" or "comprehensive" (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC no progress (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no edits since listed on FAR and the history section stops at 2005. The article needs an update. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As a queer Spaniard, I'm certainly glad to work on this if someone else is willing to track my progress/give me some guidance on where to start. My ADHD makes it somewhat hard to stay focused on unfamiliar endeavors, so I don't necessarily need another editor to work on the article as well, just some eyes :). Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A.C. after I put so much effort into checking and cleaning up the citations and expanding for comprehensiveness when this was at FAC, I can't muster the interest to do it all again considering the nominator let it fall into disrepair. (I may be one of the highest editors there simply because of the cleanup I did because I speak Spanish.) All I can offer is, be sure to add |trans-title when you translate titles, and see WP:NONENG (I usually add quotes to the citation, see the El Pais source here). And, remember to disambiguate common sources like El Nacional. And remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. The work here has to be fun, and doing this the second time around won't be for me; it's just disappointing after all the hard work I put into cleaning it up back in 2007.

My other concern is that the significant amount of new scholarly material on this makes it a daunting task to incorporate all of it, especially with so few of us who speak Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you could expand on remember you can't directly translate: that's plagiarism. How should quotes and the like be handled in this case? I've seen a few articles have the original and a translation side-by-side. I doubt extensive translations will be very necessary for this article (legal terms seem like a short exception), but I think I asking for explanation on this point can only be for the better. Regarding the significant amount of new scholarly material, I can't promise I'll do a great job at it, but I'll do my best. Even if it's not enough to get it to maintain FA, at least it will be improved somewhat :) Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Some editors have the misconception that translation should be precise and exact, but then you get into plagiarism if you haven't rephrased in your own words. Any time you use the actual words from the source, even if you translate them from Spanish to English, you have to put them in quotes and attribute, unless you have rewritten the content in your own words. If you are translating a quote of someone else's words, you should put their exact words into the quote= field of the citation template, so others can check your translation. See the El Pais sample I gave you above. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have 3 quartile exams in a week and a half from now so I probably won't be able to get much work till then, with the recent ARBCOM thread being the focus of my wiki work until then. If that's too long a wait, that's understandable. I'll see what I can do afterwards. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking it up now :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:44, 29 January 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)

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.[2] 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)

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)

• 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)

Procellariidae

Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, Vital articles, WikiProject Birds, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-01-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are sentences and whole sections that do not have citations. I tagged some of these sections with cn tags in January, but these went unaddressed. There are also citations to books that do not contain page numbers. Z1720 (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately the lack of citations isn't the major problem with this article - I could easily add some citations. The article includes a large section "Taxonomy and evolution" which is out of date. In addition, because of changes in the taxonomy since the article was written, the diving petrels aren't mentioned - or weren't - they were formerly placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae, but were found by genetic studies to be embedded in Procellariidae.

Although the identity and the relationship between the families in the order Procellariiformes is now firmly established, the branching topology of the genera in Procellariidae has been only partly known.

A preprint was uploaded to the BioRxiv server in July 2021 that contains what appears to be a robust molecular phylogenetic study of the procellariiforms (see here). I've placed a cladogram on the talk page that is based on this study. When the preprint is published in a refereed journal, I'll move the cladogram into the wiki article.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Aa77zz I see you made some edits recently. Is this star salvageable, or should we Move to FARC? I am wondering if Jimfbleak has an opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:, I'm a fairly minor editor to this article, and I don't have the access to resources that Aa77zz has. He is one of the two major editors and currently working on it, so I'm content to leave it to his judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: I see no edits since 4 January; how is this coming along? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll work on the article over the next few days. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: I see that work is ongoing. @Aa77zz: please ping me here when the article is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Mars

Notified: RJHall, Drbogdan, Huntster, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notification 2020-12-18

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted by Sandy Georgia on the talk page a year ago, the article has major issues including lack of citations (18 cn tags), bloating, some use of questionable sources and MOS issues, such as too-short paragraphs and MOS:LEAD. In addition there are some issues of balance that look questionable to me, for example the section on Martian canals is longer than that on exploration of Mars. (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed some citation needed tags, and I will plan to fix more of them. Blue Jay (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I see work is progressing. The article is jammed up with too many images, poor layout, and MOS:SANDWICH, and I wonder about WP:CITATION OVERKILL. Are all of those statements with three and four citations controversial and do they really need so many sources? Looking at the TOC, it appears that the article could be better organized. There is a section heading to house one map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I fixed all citation needed tags. Blue Jay (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• The citation needed tags have been fixed, which is a great start. The article still has issues with section imbalance, updating, overcite that are flagged with cleanup tags. The issues raised by Sandy above (eg image overkill) are also still present. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• I've removed the interactive Mars Map section, since the Topographic map seen in that section is also seen in a previous section. I will start with trimming and reducing the number of images.

This article has pretty serious issues throughout and will need sustained attention to bring it to standard. Here’s an example:

The seasonal frosting of areas near the southern ice cap results in the formation of transparent 1-metre-thick slabs of dry ice above the ground. With the arrival of spring, sunlight warms the subsurface and pressure from subliming CO2 builds up under a slab, elevating and ultimately rupturing it. This leads to geyser-like eruptions of CO2 gas mixed with dark basaltic sand or dust. This process is rapid, observed happening in the space of a few days, weeks or months, a rate of change rather unusual in geology – especially for Mars. The gas rushing underneath a slab to the site of a geyser carves a spiderweb-like pattern of radial channels under the ice, the process being the inverted equivalent of an erosion network formed by water draining through a single plughole.[133][134][135][136]

That passage is cited to four 15-year-old sources— probably dating to when the article was featured. If this info about gas and geysers has borne out over time, it should be possible to upgrade the citation to one current source. This problem is throughout the article, and a top-to-bottom rewrite may be needed to save this star.

Sources will need serious checking, too, eg: Olympus Mons". mountainprofessor.com. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe, SandyGeorgia, and The great Jay: - I think I've found a copyright violation here.

Source: "the dark streaks— called recurring slope lineae (RSL)—which appear seasonably are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"

Article: "that dark streaks called recurring slope lineae (RSL), which appear seasonably, are caused by briny water flowing for a few days annually"

Given that the source is The Week (Indian magazine), unless we can establish backwards copying, this is definitely a copyvio. So this one needs looked at very carefully. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Insertion occurred in these two edits, so yes it's a copyvio, but this looks like a one-off incident. Hog Farm _Talk 04:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, but now we have to check the rest of that editor’s edits and do the revdels. You’re the admin :) Or should I ping in Diannaa? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, they only have 102 edits, of which some only consist of blatant MOS:OVERLINK. Will look into that soon - if I find enough issues, I might see about getting a mini CCI started. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I will ping Moneytrees for advising on the RD1 here - I've been told that revision deletion is not always best for small violations that affect large swaths of page history, and in this case we have a single sentence and would have to delete over 360 revisions. Hog Farm _Talk 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm I wouldn't revdel that, since as you said it's a small violation and would affect too much of the page history. Moneytrees🎄^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the Exploration section also include all the proposals for future Mars missions or an overview of all of them? Blue Jay (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blue Jay I would support merging the "Spacecraft visitation" and "Astronomy on Mars" sections under the "Exploration" top-level heading. This can cover future plans, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Alright, I will try merging once enough support is made for that decision. Blue Jay (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    The entire TOC concerns me per WP:WIAFA 2b, but I am unable to find any WikiProject Astronomy guideline about how to structure a planet article. When you are finished with the rest of the cleanup, The great Jay, I hope that a better rationalization of the overall structure can be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

    • Should the last paragraph for the martian canals be on the habitability and life section? It doesn’t really mention any observations of canali. Blue Jay (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - Update: I've done some work on the sources, replacing dead sources and old sources with new ones, and replaced questionable looking sources with more reliable ones. I'll try my best to address the source problems. Blue Jay (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work! The excessive amount of images, and the convoluted Table of Contents (WP:WIAFA 2b) are also a concern; the article could probably benefit from a better structure. I haven’t looked at your new sourcing yet, but did see:

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Blast" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Greek Names of the Planets" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "theoi" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "phobos.html" is not used in the content (see the help page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gotten the four cite errors corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Where are the mentions of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia? These are major impact features and amonngst the largest in the Solar System. Elysium Mons also probably also deserves a mention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I added some mentions of Isidis Planitia and Argyre Planitia in the impact topography section.Blue Jay (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison

Notified: Charles Edward, Hoppyh, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Virginia, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject United States Presidents, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 2021-09-23

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Hello, I gave a notice on the 23 September 2021, but nothing much has changed since then. I think the article is quite good except for a few unsourced pieces of text. I think it would be good to see if it still meets the FA criteria. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sahaib3005, just to clarify, are the issues you posted on the talk page the entirety of your concerns with this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria, no there is quite a few bits of unsourced text in the article. For example in the death and funeral section "On March 26, 1841, Harrison became ill with cold-like symptoms. His doctor, Thomas Miller, prescribed rest; Harrison was unable to rest during the day for the crowds in the White House, and that night chose instead to host a party with his army friends.", there is no source.Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There appears to be no problem here. The citation (currently #121) is at the end of the next sentence. Let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for improving the article. I don’t see any more problems with the article (though other editors might). Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: After a quick skim I think this article is salvageable. There's some uncited sentences and paragraphs that need to be resolved. I also think some short paragraphs can be merged, particularly in the "Legacy" section. If someone is willing to address these, I am happy to conduct a more thorough review and copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed the specific items of initial concern listed on the talk p.; I'll be glad to address other items as I'm able. Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I will be attempting a copyedit including the unsourced material issues. Hoppyh (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Please post here when the copyedit is complete, and other editors will review your work. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

My copyedit continues and I will advise when complete—probably another day or two. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: My copyedit is substantially completed; glad to help further as needed. I’m continuing to look for improvements that can be made. Hoppyh (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In this version, unformatted citations, bare URLs, and sources flagged as unreliable by Headbomb’s script. Citation cleanup work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm glad to work on these, though it's not my forte. Perhaps an example or two of corrections needed would instruct me. I'd appreciate the help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure … I will add them to Hog Farm’s list below, to keep in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A source-text integrity check should probably be conducted if possible, to make sure that the issues found at Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe are not present in this similar article, which also uses similar sources and has some similarities in the edit history. From a quick check of reference reliability:

• " "Harrison dies of pneumonia"." - history.com is considered to be generally unreliable (due to publishing fringe junk unrelated to this subject)

  Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• " Milligan, Fred (2003). Ohio's Founding Fathers. iUniverse, Inc. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-595-29322-3." - this is self-published

  Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Coincidence or Something More?". About.com. Retrieved June 9, 2008." - is about.com reliable enough for FA? I'd recommend replacing the ref

  Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• " "Statue of William Henry Harrison - Cincinnati, Ohio - American Guide Series on Waymarking.com". www.waymarking.com. Retrieved July 28, 2016." - Probably a better source than waymarking should be used for FA purposes

  Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't have time for a deeper look into sourcing right now, but I also see instances of the same ref formatted differently and used separately, such as the Thirty-One days historynet.com source. Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating what Hog Farm said, a thorough source-to-text integrity check should be conducted here, for more reasons than those mentioned by HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sample of unformatted citation (also red-flagged by HeadBomb’s script as not reliable)

"Harrison dies of pneumonia".

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sample of bare URL in citation:

https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/william-henry-harrison-history accessed August 24, 2021

Fixed I think. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

HarvRef error:

Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005.

Removed. On further reading list. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This, for example, is a book, but is lacking full citation info (eg, Publisher and ISBN)

Peck, J. M. (June 4, 1851). The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. Retrieved March 28, 2010.

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Besides those mentioned by Hog Farm, also flagged by HeadBomb’s script is the about.com source mentioned by HogFarm; about.com is WP:SPS, and is reliable if reliability can be established for the specific author of the about.com article.

These are samples only; all citations need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am initiating a citation cleanup from the beginning. Hoppyh (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have completed a review and edit of the article's citations, as well as the bibliography and further reading. Hoppyh (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Barnhart Riker is not listed in the Bibliography, and is causing HarvRef errors throughout: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Barnhart & Riker 1971, pp. 409–10. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnhartRiker1971 doesn't point to any citation.

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Peckham is listed in External links, but should be Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Borneman, listed in Bibliography, is not used, and is returning a Harv Ref error (see, you can install this script to detect errors):

  Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Moved to Further Reading. Hoppyh (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoppyh; all of the citation formatting issues I raised are addressed. I have not looked at anything else on this article, and it’s unlikely that I will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it looks as though all the concerns raised thus far have been addressed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to give this some source-text integrity checks. It looks like I can get Owens from the local library, will try to get it tonight. Hog Farm _Talk 21:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Conducting sourcing checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Henry Harrison/archive1, some problems noted. Hog Farm _Talk 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll be glad to look at them and try to solve. Hoppyh (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Commending the excellent use of the talk page by our considered and responsive Hog Farm, as this is just the sort of review that does not need to be conducted on the main FAR page, but can be summarized back to here once it is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Worked all the way through the cites to Owens. Anyone have ready access to any of the other sources? Because there were a number of issues revealed in spot-checking. Hog Farm _Talk 22:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

All I ever had was Cleaves. Unfortunate there is not more interest here, but I live in a glass house in that respect. Hoppyh (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Several of them are linked to archive.org; have you checked all of those, Hoppyh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that link and I’m glad you mentioned it–very useful I imagine, especially for older folks like myself. But to answer your question, I have to a great extent limited my work here to what’s already in the article, at least until HF started the source checking. I’m growing a bit unsure how much more I should do here, without the benefit of more editors. Hoppyh (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand the dilemma; perhaps someone will check source check all of those archive links, considering that Hog Farm is finding concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Could you instruct me using an example? Hoppyh (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: Sure, I will put that on the talk page here (with my apologies for not being able to help out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I will initiate a source-to-text review for the Gugin citations. I will attempt to fix and use the edit summary to note location. Hoppyh (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

To update, Gugin review complete, also Burr, now have Carnes in process. See archive link above provided by Hog Farm. Hoppyh (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: - Are you done with the Owens items? I'll return it back to the library soon, if so. Hog Farm _Talk 17:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Hoppyh (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hold in FAR, slow but steady progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm indicated he may get access to additional sources over Thanksgiving and if so I will be glad to respond to whatever that reveals. Other than that, the only additional source checking I can think of is to perhaps check those citations with on line links. Let me know if there is other work needed here. Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

If the Taylor source is really from 1899, it should be public domain and accessible through Google books or something. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it–I’ll do the check. Hoppyh (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

To update, I’ve had some success accessing additional sources; results are posted on the talk page here, and we’ll keep at it as time (and turkey) allow. On a side note, it happens that Harrison has a connection to Thanksgiving, as his birthplace at Berkeley Plantation claims to be a site of one of the first Thanksgivings in the country. Check it out.Hoppyh (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

As further update on our audit of sources, I think I have done all I can. It appears there are six sources remaining unaudited, for which I have no access: Barnhart/Riker, Bolivar, Cleaves, Collins, Funk, and Greiff; 19 citations are linked to these. I will be glad to help further if other issues arise. Hoppyh (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I might be able to get Barnhart/Riker and a different edition of Cleaves from a library, possibly tomorrow (no guarantees, though). Collins I can probably get from a nearby library, but it's a bit of a drive that I often don't have time for. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I will try where possible to replace the sources for the above citations in lieu of finding the refs we don't have access to. Hoppyh (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Cites to Funk and Barnhart/Riker have been replaced–I have moved those sources from Bibliography to Further Reading section. Hoppyh (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't able to get to the libraries so far this week, hopefully can get there soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

At this point, the only sources which remain unchecked are Bolivar, Cleaves, Collins, and Greiff, making up nine citations. Hoppyh (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not concerned about the citations to Greiff, based on the subject matter they are supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I have exhausted my avenues of access/replacement as to the remaining 9 citations. Hoppyh (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Was able to check Cleaves and Collins, although I had to use a different edition of Cleaves that appears to be much longer (stuff cited as being in the 150s appeared to roughly correlate to the 340s). Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Noting that some issues were flagged up checking those two. With Greiff not being a significant concern due to it just supporting the existence of statues, that just leaves the infrequently-used Bolivar. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that all the issues flagged have been sufficiently addressed. Hoppyh (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure that "Leaving it in for now." in response to a problem passage sourced to Collins is fully addressing the problem. Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Text and cite replaced. I’d like to confirm wife’s return from Ohio to his deathbed but need to research that. Hoppyh (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. She never made it.Hoppyh (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have completed a substantial edit, adding sourced detail in the Death and Funeral section, as appropriate for this aspect of the article. Hoppyh (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It’s been a couple weeks since we did anything here and the original review nominator has long since indicated his departure from this. I guess someone will weigh in about where this goes at some point. I’m glad to return here if needed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Hoppyh; I’m not sure what might happen next here. Perhaps a Move to FARC is needed to get some !votes on where this article stands. It’s not clear to me if the source-to-text integrity issues are resolved, and I haven’t really engaged this FAR for that reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm about to enter a week-long wikibreak, so I won't be able to engage much here right now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy your break; perhaps we can hold here for a week or two more then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say, between Hog Farm and myself, the article has undergone a fairly exhaustive source-to-text audit; I believe our notes bear that out. Hoppyh (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Hoppyh: - I've checked the web sources for three sections, and flagged up a bunch of failed verification or other problematic things. Most of the failed verification is tagged in the article, but more details are at the talk page of this FAR with the other spot-checks. I also found some instances where a RS web source cited includes negative information about Harrison that is not reflected in the article, I suspect that a few sections may be glossing over things (such as his performance as diplomat). I'm also concerned to the citations to Burr 1840 - this is a source written during the time Harrison was running for president on a log cabin platform, so "and he was hailed by many as a national hero" clearly needs a better source, and I'm suspicious of the entire paragraph talking about Harrison's simple farm life and decision not to run a still - we shouldn't be using a possibly-partisan source from when he was running on the log cabin platform to source such material. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm: I’ll be glad to work on these. Hoppyh (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm: Burr is not my source here, but I come to his defense. Reference in Burr the preface and also pp. 290-291, where the author forthrightly addresses the potential allegation of timing and partisanship; he firmly denies bias and refers to the sources in his appendix. While not necessarily dispositive of the RS question, such an effort to dispel concern was rare at that time and level of sophistication, and the source is therefore worthy of some degree of reliability. Hoppyh (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The author verifies the information about the still with an address Harrison made to the Hamilton County Agricultural Society-see appendix. The appendix also includes reference to Harrison’s farm labors and poor circumstances, as well as his being responded to by colleagues and the public as a hero. (I don't personally find that surprising, inasmuch as he did seek and obtain the presidency.) I also have conducted a search on the internet of the author and I can find no entries which draw into question his objectivity in his book on Harrison. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

That said, I will endeavor to revise/omit text as needed to synchronize with the source. Certainly, if you identify negative info worthy of inclusion, let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I will be going over the RS web site mentioned above–this is the Freehling work–which may have additional negative information for other sections of the article, and I will make textual revisions as appropriate, and note them on our archive. Hoppyh (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am confident I have gleaned all the material Freehling has to offer, both positive and negative. Hoppyh (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

At this juncture, having made numerous additions and other revisions based on Freehling, I will again copyedit the article for typos, etc.. Hoppyh (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Work is still ongoing on talk. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 26 January 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.

Jabba the Hutt

Notified: Dmoon1, TAnthony, UpdateNerd, David Fuchs, Treybien, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Fictional characters, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-03

Review section

The article has gone through changes over the years since its FA promotion in 2006. Issues were raised in March of last year, like large amount of unsourced/unverified info, odd and imbalanced structure/layout (e.g. appearances before design, more in-universe details and less real-world perspectives). There have been edits since, but the issues apparently still persist, i.e. haven't been yet addressed. George Ho (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

George Ho is there an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I checked over and over just to be sure. All I see are minor cleanups, eliminating alternative name from lead, and reverts. Issues still unaddressed, even with "cn" tags. --George Ho (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, per George Ho. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC sourcing concerns remain. I also think there's a lot of fancruft, with two sections talking about his appearances in the franchise. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. DrKay (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu

Notified: Johnleemk, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Ethnic groups, 2021-12-01

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs to be updated with recent events; "update needed" banners have been in the article since August. There are also some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Had a wary eye on this article for awhile and am not sure whether I have time to dig into it myself, but through a quick search saw that there seem to be a reasonable number of more recent sources available, which presumably would cover more recent info if it is due. CMD (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Z1720, what’s the status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The last edit to the article was Jan. 12, three days before I initiated this FAR. Problems still persist. I recommend a Move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per Z1720. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, needed updating has not occurred. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and datedness. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Torajan people

Notified: User talk:Indon, User talk:Outriggr (2006-2009), WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Death, 31 Dec

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of verifiability issues and lack of RS, as detailed on the talk page (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC no edits. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC: large swaths of unsourced or poorly sourced text remain. (In addition to the unreliable sources that Buidhe mentioned on the talk page, amazingnotes.com is a blog and incitoprima.com is selling tourist excursions.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I see Chainwit. has added some references, although the ruparupa source might be a blog? Hog Farm _Talk 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It is a commercial website with no academical reliability. It's not a good ref too. --Chainwit. (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Zelda Fitzgerald

Notified: JayHenry, Pantherpuma, Nikkimaria, Scartol, DrKay, AlexiusHoratius, HAL333, Dunks58, Valetude, Merry medievalist, Willthacheerleader18, Zziccardi, WikiProject Alabama, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, talk page notification 19 March 2021

Flask please notify WP:BIO and WikiProject Womens’ History— both are listed on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Done. — Flask (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Review section

As noted on the article's Talk Page nearly a year ago and not addressed, this Featured Article is in a poor state and has a number of issues which would require considerable effort to fix. The article was approved for FA status nearly fifteen years ago in 2008 when standards were more lax, and the Wikipedia user who created the article JayHenry has been inactive for over a decade. I shall list a small sample of the issues:

First, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-researched." The use of a single source—Nancy Milford's 1970 biography—for the overwhelming majority of the article is insufficient to say the least. Much scholarly research about Zelda Fitzgerald has been undertaken by Sally Cline, Matthew J. Bruccoli, Deborah Pike, James L. West III, and many others since Milford's 1970 biography, yet very little of this newer research appears in this article. Consequently, various claims in the article are over fifty years out-of-date. For example: The article recounts Milford's hypothesis that F. Scott Fitzgerald forced Zelda to rewrite her novel Save Me the Waltz. However, early drafts of Zelda's novel were later analyzed by scholars, and the alterations demanded by F. Scott Fitzgerald were determined to be fewer than Milford supposed (Bruccoli 1991, p. 4). "The revisions Scott finally demanded were actually relatively few, and that the disagreement was quickly resolved, with Scott recommending the novel to Perkins" (Bryer & Barks 2009, p. 164). Accordingly, the article needs to be rewritten both to update such outdated claims and to include a more diverse array of sources.

Second, the article gives a misleading impression of her life. Currently, the article gives the misleading impression that Zelda's final decades were akin to the doomed Dauphin of France. Yet much of Zelda's later years were not spent imprisoned in mental institutions. She actually lived in Montgomery and held a variety of jobs. She had only just returned to the mental institution where she died in a hospital fire. Furthermore, the article gives undue weight to Zelda's novel Save Me the Waltz and implies its failure forever crushed her spirits. Yet, after writing the novel, Zelda embarked upon a career as a playwright and wrote the stage play Scandalabra in Fall 1932 (Bruccoli 2002, p. 343). The play was produced and staged in Baltimore (see her daughter Scottie's preamble in The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald, 1991). She drafted a second novel Caesar's Things and painted dozens of beautiful paintings. Yet, whereas Save Me the Waltz is given an entire section, there is inadequate coverage of these other important undertakings.

Third, the article fails the FA criterion to be "comprehensive." The article omits many events in the life of the subject. For example: Despite using Nancy Milford's 1970 biography as its primary source, the article ignores pivotal events in Milford's biography, especially regarding Zelda's mental health deterioration. There are no detailed references to her attempts to kill both herself and her child (see Milford 1970, p. 156). These omissions give the misleading impression that Zelda was hospitalized without due reason. Even more odd is the article's implications about Zelda's institutionalization (i.e., "Scott placed her in..."). As documented in her many biographies and her letters, Zelda often insisted on being hospitalized over Scott's objections (see Bruccoli 2002, p. 320: "Zelda insisted that she wanted to be hospitalized"). Scott objected because—as a miser—he didn't want to pay any hospital bills. Hence, it is peculiar how the article omits key events and phrases other events in a way that give a wrong impression.

Fourth, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-written." Its prose is neither engaging nor of a professional standard. Sentences are inserted haphazardly; events are presented outside of chronological order; the subject and her husband are often interchangeably and confusingly referred to as "Fitzgerald". The article needs a thorough prose audit by the Guild of Copy Editors.

Fifth, the article fails to convey why the subject is notable. Zelda Fitzgerald is often hailed by cultural historians as "the High Priestess of the Jazz Age," and yet the article does not adequately convey why she is historically notable other than as the wife of a famous author. By omitting or occluding many key events in her life, the article does not convey why so many scholars regard Zelda Fitzgerald to be a Jazz Age icon.

In sum, I do not believe this article should qualify as a Featured Article in its current state. This article needs a lengthy, painstaking and complete rewrite as its current iteration gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Zelda Fitzgerald's fascinating life. Given that the bulk of the article was written using a single source, this rewrite will be a colossal task as it needs to draw upon at least half-a-dozen reputable biographies in order to fulfill the FA criteria of being comprehensive and well-researched. — Flask (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zelda Fitzgerald the issue of sourcing was raised then, and in the 14 years since more sources are available. I see that Linda Wagner-Martin has published a biography that may or may not have been available to JayHenry and one of Cline's biographies was published in 2012, four years after the FAC. Updating sources is par for the course with our older FACs. Anyway, I'd like to rewrite this and think it's doable but a.) am currently committed to helping with J. K. Rowling FAR; b.) am a very slow worker. So it's up to the coords as to whether to hold and wait or go ahead with the delisting process. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Flask would agree to have this put on hold until J. K. Rowling is done; I think that would be less than a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this article would be better off de-listed as a FA so that Victoriaearle, HAL333, myself, and others could extensively rewrite it over a period of several months. I, too, am a slow worker, and a "well-written," "well-researched," and "comprehensive" FA about Zelda Fitzgerald would necessitate reading and synthesizing about a dozen authoritative biographies about the Fitzgeralds (i.e. Mizener, Turnbull, Bruccoli, Wagner-Martin, etc). Each of these sources often contradict each other in key details (e.g., whether or not Zelda and Scott were physically unfaithful during the early years of their marriage, etc.), and one must sift through mounds of conflicting information. Although a great deal of relevant details could be recycled from other articles such as Save Me the Waltz, Tender Is the Night, This Side of Paradise, etc., there is so much information that needs to be added, and much of that information lies within scholarly mine-fields. The ongoing scholarly debates about whether Zelda was the victim of sexual abuse by her father; the role of formerly enslaved African-Americans in the Sayre household; the question of how much the Sayre family's ties to the Ku Klux Klan protected Zelda from societal sanction in Mongomery, etc., are just a few examples of those mine-fields. Even if we rewrote this article over several months, I'm not sure the revamped article would meet current Featured Article standards. — Flask (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a plan in place to delist and then take to FAC. Sorry for stepping in. In that case, I'll let it go. Just to say, though, in terms of what's needed, I do understand. Unwatching this and the Zelda articles now. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per above, there have not been efforts to improve the article during the FAR. (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per concerns above. Hog Farm _Talk 21:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC concerns above still remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Titanium

Notified: Mav, Smokefoot, Double sharp, Pzzp, Materialscientist, Vsmith, WP Elements, WP Rocks and minerals, talk page notification 2021-03-27

Review section

This 2003 promotion was last reviewed at FAR in 2007 during the push to add inline citations on older FAs. It has uncited text throughout, as well as dated text (see History section as but one example, but uses and production need updates), and a comprehensive literature survey is needed. Also, uses a press release for production forecast, and sources like this one. Marginal external links. I haven't examined the prose or MOS issues, but immediately noticeable are MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:ACCIM (images at bottom of section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I can't help much for this one, since my literature collection is mostly for the rarer elements. A while back I put in citations for what I could find in Greenwood & Earnshaw, but that's a fairly general inorganic-chemistry textbook and it doesn't cover everything that this article covers. Double sharp (talk) 10:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have added and updates refs and production data, also improved image placement. I've checked some reviews and haven't found major changes in Ti application areas. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

SG Review:

• The infobox is a nightmare; I have relocated the first image to avoid MOS:SANDWICH because of the excessive length of the infobox, which pushes the image well below the section where it should be. There is too much content in the infobox for me to check whether all is cited in the body of the article.
  • Just a note, infoboxes for chemical elements are generally cited to a central repository of data from handbooks (List of data references for chemical elements) – you'll get a link there if you click the "references" at the bottom of the infobox. Double sharp (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have removed punctuation from sentence fragments in image captions, and added punctuation for full sentences in image captions.
• See also needs attention. I removed those already linked in the article. Why is suboxide listed there, but not used in article? If Titanium in Africa and Titanium in zircon geothermometry and VSMPO-AVISMA are notable enough to be in See also, why aren't they covered in this article?
• Citation cleanup needs and reliability of sources, samples only on a quick glance:
  • Titanium. Mindat
  • Missing page no. Kleefisch, E.W., ed. (1981). Industrial Application of Titanium and Zirconium. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. ISBN 978-0-8031-0745-8.
  • This is a press release: not formatted and not adequate for what it is citing - Compact Powerhouse: Inside Corvette Z06’s LT4 Engine 650-hp supercharged 6.2L V-8 makes world-class power in more efficient package. media.gm.com. 20 August 2014
  • Flower is listed in the Bibliography but never used in the article
  • Another press release, MEDRS source needed: "Titanium foams replace injured bones". Research News. 1 September 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
  • Significantly, the Medical uses section sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. There is a lot; here is one sample:
    • One study indicates a possible connection between titanium and yellow nail syndrome.[117] (cited to a 10-year-old primary study).
  • What makes this reliable? https://www.pobjoy.com/us/world-firsts ... sample only, there is more.
• There are one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article.
  • I stopped checking after these few; a review of all sources and citations is in order.
• Dated text, sample only, "Because of its durability, titanium has become more popular for designer jewelry (particularly, titanium rings).[96] (Cited to 1988)
• The next paragraph repeats the same wording: copyedit needed with better organization of text. Titanium's durability, light weight, and dent and corrosion resistance make it useful for watch cases.[96] Light weight and durability are repeated throughout the product mentions. It is obvious that this article has grown over time, with bits added piecemeal, text not well integrated.
• Attention to wikilinking needed, sample, what is picomolar? is about 4 picomolar in the ocean.
  • I linked this one to the article where it's defined. Double sharp (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• MOS:CURRENT (and cited to 1988): "About fifty grades of titanium alloys are designed and currently used, although only a couple of dozen are readily available commercially.[67]"

I stopped there; these are samples only based on a quick look. Sourcing and citation needs attention, and datedness examined, before looking further at prose. Unless someone is willing/able to take on a top-to-bottom refreshing of this article, the nom should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Some relatively easier-to-fix items have been addressed, but the substantial issues will required sustained and dedicated attention, which is not happening. Moving to FARC does not preclude that the real work still could or might happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per sourcing concerns raised by Sandy above. I also think the layout of the article needs work, with many short and one-sentence paragraphs throughout. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose and style. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Surface weather analysis

Notified: Thegreatdr, MiamiProf, Runningonbrains, Tmangray, WikiProject Weather, talk page notification 2021-12-04

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large swaths of unsourced text. There is also plenty of more recent academic literature that needs to be incorporated. The article's history section is 20 years outdated. Surely something has happened since 2001. Lastly, the article needs a thorough copy edit to fix numerous Grammar issues. Noah^Talk 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• This article is part of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones (see page 3), and based on what I found at the Tornado FAR, it is likely to have unattributed copying within and unattributed public domain text. There are no {{Copied}} templates on talk, and no {{Pd-notice}} templates in the article. As an example, this edit did have unattributed public domain text, so the article will need a thorough check. This is not an insurmountable problem; it just requires time to check and add the necessary attributions (see the sample at the Tornado FAR) to make sure the article complies with WP:WIAFA 1f. If someone intends to restore this article to FA status, this work will need to be done. I should also note that the number of dead links and missing publishers in the citations a) invalidate Earwig results (which would need to check archive.org versions of dead links), and b) make it hard to locate the public domain sources, so the first step would be to clean up the citations to add archive.org verions and to add publishers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC due to the concerns above being unaddressed. Noah^Talk 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC zero progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist No progress has been made. Noah^Talk 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, considerable issues, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - needs major improvements. Hog Farm _Talk 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Rock Springs massacre

Notified: IvoShandor, Quadell, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject China, WikiProject Death, WikiProject United States, 28 Nov

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it cites sources that are not high-quality RS. There are plenty of secondary sources on this incident, we should not be citing breaking news from 1885. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, zero progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd hate for this to go to waste. I'll look into sourcing starting this weekend. MSG17 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe waste is not a good word, but the point is that it seems it can be saved but no one else is taking it up. MSG17 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

All FARs are potentially saveable in my opinion, but this one will require more work to fix it up than some since a lot of the citations are not HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

True... Haven't been able to do much with sourcing right now, but I'll see what I can get up to this evening and this week. MSG17 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Monarchy of the United Kingdom

Notified: Lord Emsworth, DrKay, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Commonwealth, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-02-05 2021-11-27

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sections and bloating. The formatting of the references are also inconsistent, and I think some of the news sources can be replaced with academic sources, if found. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• No progress since nomination, Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC – there are a number of issues here, and no effort has been made to resolve them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist still has considerable unsourced content and I'm not seeing efforts to address that (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - not much engagement, and there's unsourced content and the finances section is 10 years out of date. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per Hog Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per the above: problems remain unaddressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Holden

Notified: User talk:OSX, User talk:GTHO, User talk:Fitzpatrickjm, WP:AWNB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WT:COMPANIES July 2021 notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the heavy reliance on company materials and also unreliable sources, per my talk page notice. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Bumbubookworm, neither the talk page notification, nor the listing here identifies which text that is sourced to company materials breaches WP:ABOUTSELF. It would be difficult to write a comprehensive company article without using the company's own sources; we need to know instances where that is done inappropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, 1c) does require high-quality RS, which I believe should not use a large chunk of self-sourcing if possible. Holden was the only Australian car company that existed, so while it was operational, it was the de facto national car company in the way that Qantas is the de facto national airline. If you go to google books there are dozens of full-length books that are specifically about Holden, more than there are on some Prime Ministers of Australia. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

This article uses many book sources already; could you please provide some specific information that is left out and that should be included to meet comprehensiveness? Company articles (like schools) will use self-sourcing, and as long as it is done appropriately, that is not a reason to delist, and high quality is dependent upon the content area. We should provide specific examples of content from reliable sources that is not included, but should be, to cover major facts, per 1b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC no edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - you nominated this article for FAR on Christmas Day. You might want to give people a bit more time given the time of year. Deus et lex (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist no substantial progress so far, the article still has cleanup banners. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged as needing additional references and for vague or ambiguous time. DrKay (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, cleanup needs, unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Green (Dartmouth College)

Notified: User talk:Kane5187, User talk:PoliticsIsExciting (no other users with > 2% edits) WT:SPEAK, WT:UNI, WT:USA, WT:NH, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dartmouth_College, Sept 2021 notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because a large part of the sourcing is to the university itself, or a blog called "Dartmo", so it lacks high-quality reliable and independent sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(on mobile) @Bumbubookworm: As the nominator is mostly retired, to be fair to them you should at least copy their defense of Dartmo's reliability from the FAC. Regarding non-independent sources, it's typical for higher education articles to have a lot of those, as they're typically the best available, so I'm not sure that'd be enough alone to get me to !vote to delist. What would get me to delist is if the non-independent sources are used to support information that does not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Did you find any such information? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

From an outside look, it seems like a lot of the non-independent sourcing is just used to establish basic characteristics of the green or noncontroversial history, although "Given the Green's role as "the physical and emotional center of campus life,"" should almost certainly have a secondary source. On an unrelated note, "Dartmouth is well known for its variety of long-standing student traditions" is something that should ideally be sourced to something more recent than 1999. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the tag-bombing of this article should be reverted; Dartmo was covered in the FAC, and it appears to meet WP:SPS, and is not used to cite anything controversial or self-serving. Once that is done, I’ll do minor MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the unreliable sources tag and the inline taggings of Dartmo as self-published. Hog Farm _Talk 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment the History section seems to end at 1906. Are there any events of note for this space in the past 100 years? Perhaps renovations, major damage from a weather event, or changes to the space? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC While the "Rallies and protests" section lists some events, there is no information on the history of this location post-1906 (renovations, proposals to protect the site, damage to the site from weather events, etc.) I raised these concerns in the above comment but they have not been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Courtesy pinging the Dartmouth alums on WP: User:Akwdb, User:ArunavJain, User:AustinZ, User:BA Schuetze, User:Bigroryg, User:Buburuza, User:Claymoney, User:Comte de Chagny, User:Cthomas3, User:Dartmothian, User:DMCer, User:DuncmanG, User:Eden5, User:Elitesunlight, User:Feeeshboy, User:Havenoterty, User:Heema, User:Hluboka1, User:Hotstreets, User:JesseBeach, User:Johnleemk, User:Justjared, User:Kane5187, User:Keesiewonder, User:Kenticus, User:Kharker, User:Kier07, User:Letoofdune, User:LexisNexisWest, User:LilHelpa, User:MementoVivere, User:Merchako, User:MrZu, User:NJDFan82, User:Nnn9245, User:Rhsatrhs, User:RideABicycle, User:Sabriel~enwiki, User:Schi, User:Searine, User:Smith120bh, User:Stilken, User:Texasmusician, User:Thechoipolloi, User:Theoddball, User:Tombadog, User:Trak65, User:WonderBoy1998, User:Youngtim74. If any of you would like an easy featured article star, this hopefully shouldn't be a very hard article to save. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist no edits this year, still has cleanup banner. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references. DrKay (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• While I think the primary sources thing is a bit overblown, as this is the sort of article where having a higher rate of primary sourcing for noncontroversial history would be expected, I am seeing some issues:
  • "the locations of which varied until about 1931, when the configuration was last altered" - but the source (Dartmo) says "The paths probably fell into their current pattern after 1931, though changes have been occurring on the southeast corner in the last 30 years" - so the source couches as probably, but the article doesn't, and the source doesn't really seem to agree with the "when the configuration was last altered"
  • Information found in Dartmo that should be in the article probably - there use to be a lot of elm trees on the green, but they have been taken out by storms and disease
  • "Even though the land had been cleared, many tree stumps remained until 1831;" - source doesn't support the exact date. It says that clearing continued in 1771 and the trees were burned and removed in 1772, and that it extended for sixty years. There is no indication that the 60 years isn't a round number, so we can't really support an exact date of 1831
  • "and old division football was played by the 1820s" - source doesn't specify the 1820s
  • Most of the weblinks to Dartmouth's website are broken
  • It looks like they had a presidential debate there in 2011. 2007 debate rallies on the Green are mentioned in the article; did they occur for 2011 as well?

So delist because just from a quick link we've got some source-text problems. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist per HF. As above, I don't find the primary sources issue concerning, but the things HF pointed to indicate a need for maintenance/changes, and it's clear none are forthcoming. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Delist, per Sdkb and Hog Farm (concerned that we not take an indiscriminating stance on usage of primary sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've removed the cleanup banner, as it's been challenged by multiple people here and there doesn't seem to have been a compelling argument as to why those primary sources are problematic to the extent of slapping an orange cleanup banner on there. Hog Farm _Talk 16:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist per above. HF pointed out comprehensive issues that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling

Notified: Serendipodous; WT:WPBIO; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment; WT:BRISTOL; WT:CHL; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers; WT:WOMEN; WT:NOVELS; WT:FANTASY; WT:WPHP; talk page notification 2021-11-26; additional talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because... it no longer meets WP:FACR due to instability, length/unnecessary detail, and lack of summary style. ––FormalDude ^talk 10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, please notify appropriate editors/projects and provide diffs per the instructions at WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Notifications still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• What strikes me most upon skimming this article is the lack of literary analysis. Rowling is primarily known as an author; there's any amount of scholarly literature on the Harry Potter series; I would expect this to be represented. Conversely, at least a little of the blow-by-blow detail of her recent life ought to be pruned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I was coming here to write this very comment myself. To Formal's point, however, I'm not sure if there will be enough editor willingness to let such changes through (well the recent life stuff at least). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree. Especially knowing from teacher friends of mine and from some light academic reading I've done, there is both wide literary analysis of the HP books and use in some educational settings to great value. I understand most of that text would go in the relevant articles, but seeing how the current HP section reads like an award list more than analysis of the works I feel that is to great detriment to this article regarding its comprehensive description of the influence of Rowling. On a similar note, for such an influential author it seems UNDUE how extensive the sections on philanthropy and views are compared to how bare-bones the sections on her work's impact. There is barely any mention of critical analysis or reviews of her books. Maya_Angelou#Reception_and_legacy and William_Gibson#Influence_and_recognition are both examples of sections in other FA articles that explore the author's influence to great success. Knowing just how ubiquitous it is in popular culture I'd expect more exploration of that in the article about her author aside from financial figures. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have to concur with Vanamonde93 and A. C. Santacruz.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Likewise. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have made a proposal to split off the award list to its own article. I don't see the point in listing all the awards an immensely successfuly writer has received in the BLP and the major ones could be easily summarized (see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for an example, and the relevant discussion in the talk page here). It's just one of the many issues this article has with summary style, as identified in the general case above by FormalDude, in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Some stats: there have been 8 reverts out of 34 total edits in December, and last month there were 18 reverts out of 48 total edits (diffs). ––FormalDude ^talk 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC doesn't seem likely that the issues discussed above will be fixed in the course of a FAR (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support nomination for FAR. The BLP is currently unstable and a battlefield for POV warriors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
• Move to FARC per above. – zmbro _(talk) 20:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Demote/move to FARC per the reasoning above. When somebody edits a featured article with an edit summary beginning with "Someone will no doubt revert this edit" and when there's a large a controversial RfC due to recent events, it is clear the article does not meet the stability criteria, and when there are indeed other content issues, it is clear it might not meet the rest of the FAC either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  The edit made remains unchanged, experience made me fear it would not be. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per Vanamonde's concerns, this really needs literary criticism in here to meet WP:FACR. Hog Farm _Talk 16:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. Fixing the concerns I expressed above is not a trivial undertaking, and I see no effort being made to address them either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC due to concerns about lack of literary criticism of her writing and general bloating, as outlined above. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review include scope, comprehensiveness, length and stability. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist due to the issues raised above. Noah^Talk 03:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist because of instability due to edit warring. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
• Delist as argued for above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Let's wait for the improvement effort first. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Just noticed this. Would appreciate a few more days to look at the problems and see how to deal with them. Instability is a result of differing opinions and can be addressed. It is one of the most important woman's biographies. It is highly accessed with almost 60,000 pages views on 1 January. Take it easy!--Ipigott (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  It just had one of the largest RfC in Wikipedia history with nearly 100 individual !votes.... you're not gonna fix that instability. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  The topic may be unstable but to note, 100 ivotes is not a history-making RFC. Off the top of my head, here’s one with almost 250 ivotes, just for example. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with User:Ipigott that this an important and prominent BLP. Unfortunately, it has become a battleground for POV wars between feminists and trans-activists. Its FA standing implies that Wikipedia endorses these wars, which I do not believe is the case. The conciliatory approach advocated by Ipigott is worthy in principle, but such editing will be bludgeoned off the page by the zealots. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC).

  It should be clearly pointed out that most feminist do not agree with Rowling on this issue and not all people who support civil rights for minorities are trans activists. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Ipigott: thanks for taking a look at this article. I am ammenable to putting this FAR on hold to give time for improvements, but I'm don't want this to be on hold for months, like what happened to British Empire's FAR. I suggest that editors interested in keeping the FA star spend a week making some improvements to the article (like preparing a literary analysis section, as suggested by the first few FAR reviewers) and conduct other fixes outside of the transgendered-comments topic area. After a week, please post here if you think this article could be fixed up in a month or two (in which I will recommend a hold) or if the problems will take many months to fix (in which I would recommend delisting and renominating the article as a WP:FAC when it is ready). Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Z1720 How does this solve the more pressing concern about criteria 1E? It's clear from the RFC on the article talk page that stability issues are likely to remain a recurring problem. To my mind, we need to delist until the article demonstrates stability. The only way to demonstrate stability is for the article to actually be stable for a sustained period of time (ie 6 months to a year with no edit warring). In other words, while improvements towards FA in other areas could be made I don't think it will ultimately prevent the article from being delisted. Editors are still welcome to work towards content improvements, but with the caveat that it's not likely going to lead towards the successful preservation on an FA listing due to chronic edit warring within the article.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  4meter4 I think that through a lengthy and somewhat heavy-handed series of talk page discussions it could attain the necessary stability in the transgender sections. I don't think the other areas are unstable, just missing large amounts of content one would expect from an author's FA-level BLP. I personally am of the view that her political opinions deserve their own article, and a short summary in the main article should be more easily stabilized. Of course, I don't really want to spend much time in the Rowling page so if no one else really wants to conduct the series of RfCs then I don't expect that to happen. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @A._C._Santacruz I agree that the current edit warring issues could be solved through a series of RFCs, but I am not confident that even that process will lead to longterm stability. Rowling tends to enjoy weighing in with controversial opinions on her Twitter account; which inevitably will lead to more media attention and subsequent edit warring on wikipedia. Rinse, Recycle, Repeat. Further, the timeline for solving these issues is unclear. That process could take months or even a year to work through. For FA purposes, it's best to delist now and let editors work towards solving instability issues outside of FA review. Once the article has become stable for a period of 6 months, then the article could be nominated for FA once again. Otherwise we have an FA review with an unreasonable open ended timeline.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @4meter4: I cannot see the future, so I do not know if the edit warring will continue in a month or two. It is easier for an article to be fixed up at FAR than it is to go through an FAC, which is why I prefer the former. I also do not want the precedence that an editor who wants to delist a FA can start an edit war and get the article delisted per 1E. When someone states that they are willing to fix up the article, I want to give them the benefit of making these improvements. There's no rush to delist now, and this discussion will probably not be closed until Dec. 14 (EDIT: Jan. 14) at the earliest, as most FARCs last two weeks. If editors cannot make sufficient improvements in the next two weeks, I will propose that the article be delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1720 (talk • contribs)

  @@Z1720:The fear that somehow this is an isolated instability issue resulting from one editor trying to attack the FA status is not grounded in the facts. In this case we have over a year of edit warring in the article's history with many editors involved, and a contentious RFC with roughly 100 active community editors involved. This is a prolonged instability problem, and all indications from wide community input indicate that it going to remain so. At some point, we actually need to enforce criteria 1E as written. We are at that point. Further, in order to demonstrate stability we need time that extends beyond what is reasonable for an open FAR.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I share Z1720's concerns about how application of 1e has been (mis)used in this FAR, and point out that a well-attended RFC is quite the opposite of an indication of instability. Enforcement of 1e as written is not what is happening in this FAR, and the issues raised about literary analysis are what should be examined here. (PS, I believe Z1720 meant Jan 14 in the post above.)

  Also, since I raised the issue of how to correctly position a FAR nomination back in November, I don't consider that this FAR has actually looked at the question of whether this article meets WP:WIAFA at all, and is in fact a nomination that pointedly ignores the issues I raised in November, becoming an inappropriate attempt to make FAR part of dispute resolution or to extend a battleground. For that reason, I believe the FAR should remain open until someone actually lists the deficiencies by supplying reliable sources to, for example, missing literary analysis, and then explains why that literary analysis belongs in the author's bio rather than in the sub-articles about the works. FAR should not be allowed to become part of dispute resolution, as is happening here, and this FAR should refocus on application of the criteria before it is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia I disagree and find your comment overly cynical. I'll point out that I have not participated in any other discussions surrounding the Rowling article and am basing my opinion entirely on article history and talk page history. If an FA rated article has had chronic edit warring for over a year and a well attended RFC was unable to find a resolution, how can you possibly argue that criteria 1E isn't relevant or hint that editors indicating that it is are somehow misusing FAR process? To my mind, this is an argument with a clear attempt to ignore and subvert FA policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to respond to your insinuations.

  If there are deficiencies with the article, start listing them please so that other reviewers (like Z1720) can discuss whether they actually are deficiencies and whether they can be resolved in the course of a FAR. The purpose of FAR is to identify deficiencies so they can (hopefully) be addressed, and this has not been done here. The purpose of FAR is not to enable editors who engage in editwarring to get an article delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @ SandyGeorgia Instability is a deficiency per criteria 1E. There are certainly other issues such as length and lack of literary analysis section as mentioned by others. However, I don't see that working towards those at this time will be useful at this FAR as the longterm instability problems (see article history) and failed attempts at dispute resolution (see RFC) indicate the need to delist immediately. I understand that you will disagree with this, and lets agree to just stop our back and forth for civility sake and our own well being. Have a good day.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I am still inclined to delist now, but I think Z1720's reply above is probably the best thing to be done. Outside of stability issues the article can certainly be fixed and while I don't necessarily think it would be easy to get it back to FA level in a month, it certainly can get to GA. The main reason why I don't think it meets even GA criteria is the lack of analysis of her as an author as described in my previous comment above in the FAR section. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Typically "fixing" (as you say) an article (via focusing on sourcing) resolves the rest of the issues; that has not been done here, as no one yet has actually talked about sourcing and other matters of WP:WIAFA. One way to "fix" this FA might be to refocus the discussion where it might have been all along-- on WP:SS and what content belongs in sub-articles versus the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist as argued above. I think it unlikely that instability issues will be be resolved through dialogue, or that temporary abatements through talk page resolutions will result in long term stability. Rowling has chosen to engage in controversy repeatedly, and is likely to continue to do so. As such, similar issues are likely to recur and instability is likely to be an ongoing and constantly evolving longterm problem.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delist for instability and length. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hold in FARC until someone lays out some reasoning to delist that relates to actionable problems with WP:WIAFA, per my statement above at 16:02. (The idea that a well-attended RFC is an indication of instability is not a notion that should be allowed to go on record at FAR, nor should FAR be allowed to become part of a battleground or evasion of dispute resolution.) Neither were those reasons laid out on article talk via an actual notification of deficiencies, as I requested back in November, nor has that been done here on this FAR. Many have said it can be done, but no one yet has done it, and this FAR should remain open until someone complies with the FAR instructions to notice actionable deficiencies and provide concrete examples and reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia I think you are overstating your case. FA status has no impact on dispute resolution, nor is FAR intended to involve itself in influencing or evading a dispute resolution process. On the contrary, delisting the article and allowing dispute resolution to continue through the normal channels is the best path forward in my opinion and the most congruent with FA and wikipedia wide policy. Our FA articles must be stable (ie free of edit warring). When they aren't, they get delisted until such time as they show evidence of stability and can re-apply for an FA rating.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have heard your case, which I find unconvincing, and I have no problem letting the FAR Coords decide whether I am "overstating my case", along with Ipigott and Z1720. (Since I am following this FAR, you may feel free to stop pinging me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. (here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @WP:FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry Z1720 if I misunderstood you but on the basis of your previous comments I was fully prepared to see what I could do to sort things out in connection with the missing section on literary analysis. If this is no longer possible, please let me know as I have other important matters to attend to.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ipigott: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, so I cannot grant extra time and don't want there to be the impression that I can. Hopefully the FAR co-ords can describe a possible timeline for this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It's been mentioned that there is drafting underway to address the concern raised wrt literary criticism; certainly we can give some time to see how that proceeds. I also want to be clear that the simple existence of an RfC, even a contentious one, will not result in delisting on its own, and that FAR is not intended to be a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. The claim that nobody has raised actionable concerns grounded in the featured article criteria is nonsensical. The points raised by myself, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, which several other editors (including Buidhe and Hog Farm) have agreed with, have nothing to do with instability, and everything to do with comprehensiveness and representation of sources (criteria 1b and 1c). There is no independent literary analysis of Rowling's writing in this article. There are hundreds of sources available; their existence is not in dispute; neither is the fact that they are not covered in this article. If Ipigott wants time to work on these sources, that's fine with me, but the claim that there's no actionable feedback is meaningless, and if we were going to hold this up over procedural reasons of notification, we should have done it a long while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  If I had more time I'd have been doing the work to add the literary analysis as I have access to the sources and subject expertise to do that work and agree that this is a highly visible page so having it be of the highest quality is a benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I don't have the time. If someone else does I would love for them to do it. But in absence of that content I agree with Vanamonde that it cannot be said to meet the standards expected of an FA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) My concern here is primarily that the article lacks any sort of literary criticism, which is problematic given the extremely influential nature of Rowling as a writer. I do disagree with the idea that this fails the stability criteria; a single content dispute that is being worked out doesn't warrant delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  To all three; yes, there appears on the surface to be an absence of literary criticism, but a) we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles; b) we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded, and what those are; and c) we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio, as for example at the literary great James Joyce, which was repaired in the course of a FAR. A roadmap for repairing this FA via summary style would advance either this FAR, or post-FAR efforts, but !votes to delist per 1e are ill-informed. I have little doubt that, if experienced FA writers were to engage here and employ summary style, the problems in this article could be resolved. Regardless of whether that happens, at minimum this FAR should document where the issues are and what actionable measures can be used to resolve them. Simply stating that literary criticism is absent is insufficient; note at the literary great James Joyce one could make the same claim because much of the literary critique is in subarticles and is summarized back to the main article. The same can be done with the rest of the controversial content here, but we shouldn't be making decisions based on ill-formed RFCs (I've launched a few of those myself). If the article is to be delisted, let's at least do it for the right reason, after we have assured that the problems can't be fixed by moving some content to here and some content out of here from the various sub-articles. Even if we fail, we at least leave a roadmap for future repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  "we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles" That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between. "we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded" yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material. "we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Examples might better illustrate my concern-- if not for the immediate outcome, but in terms of leaving a direction for future work at least, so that FAR is doing what it's supposed to do, and we're not leaving a precedent of a delisting based on faulty reasoning.

  We have seen examples at FAR of a google scholar search being provided to justify "not comprehensive", but when examining each source returned by google, it was found that nothing was actually left out.

  We have seen examples of "X is not included", but if there are no sources covering X, that cannot be a WIAFA 1b issue.

  We have had FAs "saved" even after multiple "delists" were entered, when someone steps in to actually do the work--but it's unlikely that work that hasn't been identified will be undertaken.

  My concern is whether a stricter application of WP:SS might address a lot of what ails this article. Even if the star is lost, it's nice to see an article leave FAR in better shape than when it appeared, or at least with editors having some knowledge of what needs fixing.

  Barack Obama (which was suffering from the same unproductive POV-back-and-forth rants on talk, but little focus on sources) offers an example. It is insufficient to make the general statement that "X point of view is not included" in the absence of specifics and sample sources. At that FAR, I pointed out a recent and specific scholarly source from Princeton historian Julian E. Zelizer that included critical analysis of Obama's presidency but was scarcely represented in the article, along with Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021, that was not used at all. More than a month later, with not a single edit towards addressing those actionable issues, the article was defeatured. At least editors coming along in the future can read a FAR to see what they can do to restore the article.

  FAR is failing to do its job if this article is delisted on 1e absent an actual analysis of deficiencies with specific examples. Providing those might also encourage someone to start addressing the real issues, and focusing on sources almost always ends the battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Respectfully, I don't think you're hearing me. Examples are helpful when there is a dispute over whether sources are fairly represented. With this article, there is no dispute; literary criticism is absent, period. Even those who wish to preserve FA status, whose efforts I will do my best to support, recognize the obvious deficiency, and are working to amend it. If the people doing this work are able to see the validity and usefulness of my concerns above, I don't see why you are critiquing the reviewers here. If I have any more time for this article, I would rather spend it on the userspace draft that is being developed, and so I'm going to step away from this argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have added a large section on her literary output per the comments above and Special:PermaLink/1063766433#J._K._Rowling_delisting_as_FA. Hopefully this goes some way towards addressing Vanamonde93's, and others', concerns regarding the lack of such a section in this review. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings I think that's a good start, but I'd expect a bit more on the legacy of her works (e.g. Due to its commercial success, fantasy became a dominant genre in the children's market, a sea change from its declining status in the 1980s. seems like a promising start for a really interesting paragraph). I think another interesting source of academic analysis on her legacy is on The Death of the Author and how fans are starting to disassociate the Harry Potter IP with the author. I don't have any sources on hand atm, but thought it would be of help to mention this here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  This link had a really interesting quote that doesn't merit being included but goes along the lines of what I was suggesting above: In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz For Legacy, you might be interested in this article on the book that paragraph is based on. It could be expanded in either direction (why the 80s were in decline, or what happened to the HP imitators - see the Synopsis), but perhaps that may better fit in a history of fantasy article than here. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link, Olivaw-Daneel, much appreciated! I personally think it should be included (if briefly), but it was more of a suggestion for a (genre? Type?) of analysis we should include rather than a particular source I'd like included. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings Thanks for that; that's a substantive piece of work. I will try to review it in detail in a day or two. Three suggestions at the outset. 1) At the top-level article, we would generally want to treat her writing as a whole, rather than separated by series, because series-specific stuff is what you'd expect to see in articles about them. Obviously, with Rowling, >90% of the criticism is about HP; but I still think we could work on integrating commentary about anything else into the same section. 2) The Characters subsection, at the moment, reads like material about heroism as a theme combined with a throwaway piece about Snape. I'd suggest omitting the latter and reworking the former into the themes. 3) Similarly, ordinary vs extraordinary is also something I'd see as part of themes. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, per VM93. It is encouraging that this addition was made so quickly, reinforcing my view that (at least some of) the needed work is doable, and the FAR should remain open for work to progress. It is unconscionable that we have a highly viewed BLP in such embarrassing shape, so that even if we don't end up saving the rusty star, we can at least help restore some balance. It might be worthwhile to begin laying out other work needed, and to determine whether a team of FA-experienced writers would take this on (Johnbod, I saw you somewhere in some discussion of this article, have you any interest?), but it is probably best to first allow some time for Vanamonde93's feedback to be worked on, and to see how that goes. If that piece is successful, and more editors are interested, we might move on to identifying other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, no - I've done some little edits on talk and I think the article, but won't be doing major editing. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Further comment, based on having read or skimmed a couple dozen sources to this point; the themes commented upon most often are death and heroism; religion is discussed both as a theme and in terms of critical reception; and politics and gender, at least, are also discussed in the latter category. When writing this material I would typically break it into "themes" and "reception" (always), and "style and structure", "influences", and "legacy" (depending on what the source material focuses on). This article does not need to follow my preferences, of course, but a couple of these broad categories feel mixed together at the moment, not to mention the duplicated "influences" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looking quickly through the article now (for the first time) it seems in fair shape to me. I don't personally feel we need an enormous amount of lit crit analysis here. Let me know when it comes to a vote. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Johnbod and Vanamonde93, there's a bit that could be done before approaching a !vote, but history shows that when an experienced FA writer takes the lead, a save can happen during a FAR (a WP:MILLION in this case). Without an experienced lit FA writer on board, and taking the lead, not sure ... It seems that Barkeep49 is too busy, and I'm not sure what message VM93 is sending :) VM, would you take a lead role in a rewrite? Wtfiv is still busy at Joan of Arc, and there's Victoriaearle, who I hesitate to ask at this point, as this would be a big undertaking, and she has health issues. Who else is hiding in the woodwork? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to send mixed messages, but I don't want to commit to something I don't have the time for. I will chip in with writing when I can: I cannot promise to take a lead role, unfortunately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  That much is encouraging at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS, a little infelicity that might be corrected sooner rather than later is why we mention her friendship with Sarah Brown twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've looked at the article more thoroughly now, and find myself in agreement with Johnbod. For all the noise from (what User:Xxanthippe referred to as) "zealots", I expected to find the article in much worse shape, and if Vanamonde93's concerns can be addressed, I believe the work is doable during a FAR. FAR has undertaken to improve articles in much worse shape than this one, and this is a BLP worthy of a save. The original FAC nominator, User:Serendipodous (a competent FA writer), last edited the article in December 2020, so it was not an abandoned FA to the extent of many others we see at FAR, and normal editing by experienced content writers should be able to address most of what is now below FA standards.

I see WP:PROSELINE everywhere in the recent material, where paragraph after irrelevant paragraph begins with a date, and sometimes those dates are announcements of forthcoming events that already happened, so can be removed, and prose smoothed out. There is also WP:CITATION OVERKILL everywhere, when a few high-quality sources will do. There are also numerous short choppy paragraphs. And see WP:METRO. More specifics that need addressing will surface as work progresses, but this is not the disaster it has been made out to be, and often, once editing focuses on building content the way it should be built, differences fade into the background as collaborative dialogue is modeled as the way to address those differences.

It is hard to find a recent FA to compare to, but looking at an average between what is at Angelina Jolie (an FA still in good shape, of someone whose non-acting profile has attracted attention as has Rowling's non-writing profile) and what is at James Joyce (recent WP:FASA of a literary giant), I found that:

• after AleatoryPonderings addition of literary analysis, the percentage of the article devoted to career, analysis, critique and reception here is about on par with those articles;
• the space given to Rowling's non-writing activity (views, politics, charity, etc) is about double the average percentage of Joyce/Jolie, and
• the space given to Rowling's early, personal life health and death is about half of Joyce/Jolie (well, she hasn't died or had the health issues that Jolie had).

While these numbers can't be taken too seriously because neither Joyce nor Jolie strictly compare to Rowling, the straight biographical info about Rowling's life (this is a bio) might be beefed up somewhat, with some of the views/politics/charity sent to sub-articles. But this isn't an entirely useful analysis since the three figures are so different, and I can't come up with a more similar biographical article to compare to. The take home is that the size of the analysis of her writing seems to be about right here, as that can be covered in sub-articles, but there may be some imbalance towards views/politics/charitable and away from coverage of other biographical aspects of her life; again, this would depend on whether there is such info from high-quality sources that is left out.

I continue to recommend we hold in FAR in the expectation that someone will step up to do the work. If zealotry leads to edit warring, measures to address that more directly can be taken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Look who’s on the job :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the point you are making? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC).

Time will tell, but the star may be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of a talk page is to improve an article, not to comment gratuitously and ambiguously on other editors. I suggest you strike your comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

I've had it on my watch for years. I didn't thinking the timing for the FAR was great and meant to get over here to comment earlier but forgot to watch the FAR, and now it's very long. I don't mind picking at the "themes" section but can't get access to all the pdfs I'd like. This one looks promising if anyone here has access to T&F and could send it on to me that would be helpful. Themes and style don't need a huge section here, really only summaries, whereas the individual book articles should have longer lit crit. sections. Will report back in a few days after taking a look at what else I can access. I've never thought the article itself is really bad; I've seen much worse. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If the Coords agree the FAR can stay open for work to proceed, a lot of the length (above) was about making the case not to delist, and can be moved to talk to make way for the real work here, if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria might you get the source mentioned above and email to Victoriaearle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have access to that one - suggest WP:RX if no one else here does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No prob. I submitted a renewal at the TWL portal, and for Project Muse - which will probably be more helpful. Looks like things are moving. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle: I believe I have access to that, but not in directly shareable form. I can give you a few individual pages, and can work on adding stuff from it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer Vanamonde93. Last night I was only dipping in and hadn't noticed yet that it's being used quite heavily, so I don't think there's any need to add more from that source. It looks like I can get what I need from Jstor. 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: May I add minor points to your todo list? I'd rather not start a separate one for things that I haven't the time to fix, but are relatively easily fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Please do! I tend to raise larger issues in a separate talk page section, and link that from both here and article talk (in case the broader audience at article talk isn’t following major developments here), but the ToDo list is intended as a summary that we’ll all add to/strike from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To Do List

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1 § To Do List

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Update 8 Jan

A mere 3 1/2 days from AleatoryPonderings's bold addition of literary analysis material, many of the major issues here have been addressed with almost 400 edits, and the article is to a state that fine-tuning can begin. This is phenomenal progress in a very short time; we have other articles at FAR right now that have pages and pages of talk commentary after nine months at FAR, with still unresolved issues.

Aside from looking indepth at the Transgender people section, and rewriting the lead (best left 'til last); fat, bloat and choppiness has been reduced; citations and sourcing have improved to what looks like an acceptable place now (including removal of the WP:ELNEVER accio-quote problem); MOS issues have been mostly cleaned up; and most of the first To-Do list has been tackled.

Even with the addition of 1,900 words of literary analysis, prose tightening has taken the article from 8,500 words when it came to FAR to 7,700 words now (a respectable WP:SIZE).

There was one brief edit war on January 5, in the Transgender section, with multiple editors adding and deleting some recent newsy material. It would be helpful if the admins/arbs on board would explain to those of us for whom that is above our payscale how we can implement the discretionary sanctions mentioned on talk to help avoid any more of that, as I noticed that not one of the multiple editors who added and removed the material ever started a talk discussion.

Some questions (please add to this new To-Do list):

• Ealdgyth has indicated on talk that we might make more use of the Sean Smith bio, as that seems to be the best we have; does anyone have access to that? During the FAR, we have somewhat reduced the strictly personal biographical info (as opposed to her work) because of the absence of a good bio and the accio-quote problem. I am wondering if we can now work in a bit more.

  Everyone has access to Smith, Sean (2002). J.K. Rowling: A Biography. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 0-09-944542-5. OCLC 51303518. I've switched out some low-quality refs to refer to this book instead, but it's pretty comprehensive (albeit published in 2002) so could fuel expansion if we think there's need for that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  D’oh on me … I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Still working through this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Killed that one, now needs trimming and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Recognizing that it is still being worked on, a significant percentage of the article is now devoted to Critical analysis, Reception and Legacy. Are we at about the right size or should any of the new material be worked back in to sub-articles? How much more (or less) do you all expect to see (that is, @AleatoryPonderings, Barkeep49, Johnbod, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle: ? Dated, being re-worked on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Comment here re length of critical analysis, which may have been lost in the shuffle. Stopping now to wait for feedback. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Victoria; yes, I had missed that. You all are the experts; I'm just keeping the list going :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think we're close to the level of coverage I'd want to see re: analysis, but not quite. I was planning to add a little more to "influences" today, which is rather heavily based on her own words at the moment (I do not propose removing her statements, but some trimming is likely warranted). The promotes witchcraft vs Christian allegory debate likely should get a short paragraph; I think some of the material for this is already present, but reorganization is necessary and slight expansion likely worthwhile. The total length is a lot more appropriate now, but I think we will lose a fair bit when redundancies are omitted and the whole lot copyedited. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, particularly on witchcraft v. Christianity, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  AP added info in the Reception section: Vanamonde93 are you still planning more work in this area, or is it considered nearly done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Planning, yes, but health has kept me off-wiki. I hope to do more this weekend. I cannot really speak to completeness before examining the sources I meant to read, though I note that scholars offer a counterpoint to the "witchcraft" argument that is covered in the previous section but deserves brief mention. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 sorry to hear, and hope your health matter is nothing serious. In reading the Smith bio, I see he places the beginning of the religious debates chronologically after the film deals and before her re-marriage. Looking at the structure of the article, at this point, we have a muddle, with the religious debates sub-article linked below in her Views. I was wondering if (when you get to this) you want to create the religious debates summary as a section in the chronology after Films, before Remarriage and wealth, and then, depending on how that hangs together or what you produce, we may end up moving some of the content now under Views: Religion to either early life or your new section. (I have stuff in my head about what needs to be done still in Early life to tell her story, but haven’t found time to put it together yet, and am actually worried about starting to work there with still no much active editing happening, so will announce when I’m ready to start adding content there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Religious debates over the Harry Potter series may have some material that can be incorporated on that front. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I'm not even close to being finished and honestly can't work at this pace and haven't managed to follow the many posts here let alone what's happening in the article. There's quite a bit of reading to be done, then bits and pieces added here and there and then polishing it all to an acceptable word limit. I have a pdf on Christianity and have managed to add only a single sentence because I've only read the first page or so. And also working on the "Friendship" section and looking ahead the "Ordinary vs Extraordinary" needs reworking, then the adult mystery series. At least that's the plan in my head. The notes that I've only begun to work up are here for anyone who wants to comment there or watch or opine. Victoria (tk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree we shouldn't rush it. The stuff I listed is just material I have seen that I know should be represented; I haven't gone through even a tenth of the sources I would want to if I were writing this solo. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  No problem, Victoria; I just started the new section because we had addressed everything in the old. The progress here has been at a rather extreme pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re witchcraft, found a nice essay in this book, McEvan, Em. "'Harry Potter' and the origins of the occult". in J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter, Eds, C. J. Hallett and P. J. Huey. (2012) J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter. New Casebooks series. Macmillan International Higher Education, ISBN 9781137284921, g-book link here. Review of the chapter gives a synopsis, see Croft, Janet Brennan (2013). "[Review of J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter. New Casebooks series, by C. J. Hallett & P. J. Huey]". Mythlore. 31 (3/4): 139–143. JSTOR 26815879.. I've read the review and skimmed the first two pages of the book chapter. Parking this here. P.s Vanamonde, sorry to hear re health issues. Be well. Victoria (tk) 03:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the well-wishes, much appreciated. Hopefully on the mend now. Trying to engage with this once more. I have access to the book, and as I was about to engage with two essays that explore similar themes (the first two chapters of "Critical Perspectives", Heilman 2008), I can try to work this one in as well; unless you'd rather I wait for you? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Since you have access to Heilman (I don't) carry on with your plan. I parked this here so as not to forget about it if we need it. Victoria (tk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Victoriaearle: I've taken a stab at expanding the material in "Reception" about allegations of Witchcraft, and responses to it. Take a look, if you would. There's plenty more material, but as it quickly turns to explorations of puritan thought (McAvan), theology (Ciaccio), or children's psychology (Taub & Servaty-Seib), I think much of it belongs in sub-articles, if someone can find the time to rewrite them. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• In terms of how to tackle the Transgender people section, I have been disappointed in my searches for high-quality reliable sources. There are a few things from 2020 in the BBC and the New York Times, but google searches are overwhelmed by NOTNEWS-y recent stuff. Is anyone aware of a single, high-quality analysis of the whole matter? Could we start a list on talk here of sources we believe to be the highest quality ?

  Add Vanamonde93 note here, so we can wrap up the earlier ToDo List. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Some of the literary/peer-reviewed sources on the Trans controversies are this one, this one, and this one. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Added to list on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings has placed a draft on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  All moved to talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• We might do some analysis of how many words to devote to the recent events, and come up with a target. I have done some preliminary looking, but don't think it helpful to move forward on that until we have identified best sources.

  Draft is within reasonable word range and overall page size has stayed manageable (8,147 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have been chipping away at duplicate links with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, but leaving some that may be useful (I don't subscribe to the notion of zero duplicate links). Others might want to have a look.

  Under control well enough for this point; all of MOS issues will need a new look in the final copyedit phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all I've got; please add to the list, and thanks to all for such excellent speedy work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• What is the intended order of Publications? It looks random now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Converted to Table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Awards and honours section is not properly sourced. Should we trim it to that which is significant and for which sources can easily be found? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would say award should definitely be trimmed to those that are notable; perhaps even further trimming is warranted. Personally I'd prefer to see the truly significant awards worked into the prose as part of "reception", and the rest split into a sub-article; but I don't think it's an FA-fail issue by itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think awards could easily be its own sub-article with only some high level prose remaining in the main article. It would actually make judging what should remain a bit easier in my opinion because we could better defer to secondary sources to determine what the cut-off should be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I had best go put back the split template I just removed then, so no one agreed with it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  As original proposer of the split, I support this idea. On the topic of honours, I wonder if the honorifics following her name should be shortened to two or three. I don't mind them in the infobox as much, but between the honorifics, the IPA, her date of birth, and her pen name all the information you get in the first line is she's a British author. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  The awards is a FL-able list -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe someone will do that, but I’m in favor of now summarizing the list that is there to prose. Keep the first para (add OBE there), add a second para for her National Book Awards and British Book Awards, a third para for all other literature awards, and roll the rest in to what is now the second para, moving it to the fourth para at the end.

  Since there is a 700-page Bibliography on Rowling’s work (which I now own), that would make an interesting FL ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Complete rewrite accomplished, with sub-article, by Olivaw-Daneel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do wonder if the bibliography would be better off as a table. Normally I'd suggest splitting it into a separate article, but there's not very many in total, so perhaps that's not worth the effort here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I like that idea, because it's whacking out the Table of Contents. If anyone can point me to an article that uses a table for Bibliography, I'm happy to do the conversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Any of our bibliography FLs ought to have an acceptable structure, I'd say. P. G. Wodehouse bibliography, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Do you know of one that has sub-sections like this one? I can work on this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Never mind, I located one with a structure that should work, and will work on it tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I put the table in, not sure I like it, we need someone good with tables to prettify it, and I can later add refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  SG, you said tomorrow! Anyway, re refs for the biblio: there is a volume-length bibliography of Rowling, but I don't know how to find it other than in hard copy, which is probably hard to come by. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now really mañana, but COVID cancelled our dinner party :( :(, so I got some work done. I'm pretty sure we already have refs for most of that in the article, I just need to plop them in. But we need someone who knows how to improve on the table; it's not great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I now own that Bibliography if anyone wants to fix some of the GAs in the suite, which are all kind of a mess. I can send page nos if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  It looks much better, but is still quite long, and though not long enough to require a split I'm wondering if we should create J. K. Rowling bibliography and filmography? BilledMammal (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do we really need to include the books she wrote Forewords on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would prune them unless secondary sources make a big deal of it; and if they do at all, it's likely only of a couple, which ought to go in career rather than bibliography. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have finished the chart by using everything that was there when I was started. Since I am not a literary type, I’ll leave the pruning to all of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is the ROH-ling part of the pronounciation section in the lead sentence (I really have no clue how to call it) necessary? Wouldn't the IPA be all that is needed?Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would take it out as the pronunciation is not difficult or unusual; others may have different opinions though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC). Apparently it is an issue, as most bios mention it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The alternative seems to be ROW (as in "now" or "plough")-ling, which was evidently confusing enough in the early 2000s that plenty of profiles start out "J K Rowling (as in 'row your boat')" or something. The {{Respell}} doesn't take up much real estate and ... uh ... who can actually read IPA anyway ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unsure about the sentence attributed to Byatt. There's no question that that criticism represents a thread in the overall body of literature, i.e., it's not a fringe opinion. As written, though, I'm not sure it's aiding understanding, because it's not elaborated in the least. The same goes for the neo-Marxist critique later. AleatoryPonderings, I think you wrote those; I wonder if you could flesh them out a bit? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can find. I am not wedded to either of them, btw, so no need to keep them at all on my account. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is re: Byatt. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  A second look re: neo-Marxism gave me pause, since that's much more strongly associated with criticism of the movies, for obvious reasons (eg [3]; doi:10.1080/14791420601151289, which argues that the books are less commercial than the movies, but it's all in the context of the movies). I commented that out for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• First sentence of "themes", as written here, needs a citation; I suspect it came as a summary of the rest of that section, in which case it's possibly unnecessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it was a summary, including of content in the "ordinary and extraordinary" section. I don't think there is a single source that says all those things; it amalgamates a bunch. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's probably okay as a summary, though I generally wait to write summaries until we're done with the rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Commented out for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Elaborating on a point I made above; I think we are making judicious use of Rowling's words where influence of older writers is concerned; but I'm not sure about the whole paragraph about Mitford, which comes from an interview. I'm sure any number of interviews could be found in which she goes on at length about Lewis, or Austen, or other literary stalwarts. I'm considering omitting it unless some substantiation can be found; or perhaps we mention the name, but not much else. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Can anyone find academic commentary on non-HP stuff, especially Cormoran Strike (which, at least by number of words/books, is her most substantial non-HP work). Tison Pugh's recent book Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions has a decent chapter on Casual Vacancy and CS, but that's the only substantive bit I could find. Would like to have more than newspaper reviews if possible. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have looked and looked and found nothing. Pugh seems to be the only thing going. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

    • @AleatoryPonderings, (hello, just popping in!), did you see and reject Peter C. Molin, "A 'Phrase Too Cute to Do Our Ugliness Justice': Portraying 'Wounded Warriors' in Contemporary War Fiction" (WLA ; War, Literature and the Arts, 27, 1-21)? Maybe it’s not what you’re looking for; admittedly I am fried and didn’t read it super closely but seemed to have some material on CS. Via ProQuest. Apologies if this is unhelpful meddling! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

      @Innisfree987: Very helpful and not meddling—and nice to see you around. Special:Diff/1065543399 is what I pulled out of it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

      @AleatoryPonderings, oh excellent—and so efficient! (Across the board—you all have done remarkable work here!) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Figure out whether we should be mentioning her two non-fiction books, Very Good Lives: The Fringe Benefits of Failure and Importance of Imagination and contributor to A love letter to Europe : an outpouring of love and sadness from our writers, thinkers and artists (haven't yet had time to check whether they received significant secondary coverage, but suspect that Outpouring belongs with her political views on Brexit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I uncovered no significant secondary coverage on these, yet it seems odd to leave her non-fictions books out of the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the content here may be belong better back up here and here; some of the “Critical analysis” is duplicating some of what is back up in the description of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) All reworked, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, this (which I found and used when citing the Bibliography) may be useful in Reception (unless that is better covered by the more scholarly sources in our talk page list). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in the midst of reading biographical info, and it is becoming clear that the uncited, "rags to riches" OR in the lead will have to go. But I am loathe to edit the lead 'til we are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also based on bios, we may be overplaying Amnesty International in the lead … she was a temp secretary with several jobs, and that was one … feels like namedropping … but all of that can be reworked in the lead after I finish bio work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the way AI is mentioned in the lead now is flat out false. I will try to work on this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Struck, further reading, not so much false as just overplayed. I am still at least a day or two away from incorporating more early life biographical detail (finding it slow to complete that work with discussions forking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is now addressed in the article; we will revisit entire lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Does anyone have an elegant solution for (what is now) J. K. Rowling#Publication history? It's now a chronological list of books and large sale figures with a few personal anecdotes. After Philosopher's Stone, there aren't very many interesting stories about the publication of the books themselves that we haven't covered in thematic sections elsewhere (eg they were historic bestsellers; publishers started releasing them worldwide at the same time; etc). But it does seem important to give at least a few details there? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  On a first reading, it feels somewhat whiplash-like to read about her life (Inspiration and single parenthood), then Harry Potter's concept (Synopsis), and then the publication history of HP (Publication history). Sentences like Rowling said that she "nearly died" when she heard the news should probably be removed, as I'm not sure what encyclopedic value they have. As to an elegant solution, I'm not entirely sure what to suggest. Some sentences could certainly be simplified (e.g. The decision to publish Rowling's book owes much to Alice Newton, the eight-year-old daughter of Bloomsbury's chairman, who was given the first chapter to review by her father and immediately demanded the next. to Bloomsbury's chairman was compelled to publish the book after his daughter's "glowing" response to reading the first chapter.). Additionally, if the last four books kept breaking the previous one's record it would make sense to just say that in one sentence rather than to repeat it for each of them. Things like the Nestle prize record mention seem more appropriate for the awards section. There's probably other things I missed, but this is all I can think of this late into the night. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did some consolidating. Not sure what to do about "whiplash". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's a terrific start. The image is especially nice, as well. Things like grammar and sentence flow is best left for later, so this is probably good for now unless someone else raises an issue. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck it; this has been resolved through trimming and ordinary editing by me and others. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's not bothering me at all; maybe I'm just tired :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• (This section seems to be where our granular to-do list is now, but anyone can move this elsewhere to consolidate as needed.) Per my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft, we are missing coverage in Reception about Harry Potter and race. Sources include doi:10.1353/uni.0.0488; The Dark Fantastic (already in Works cited; I don't have a freely accessible version but perhaps Olivaw-Daneel has it—OD as I recall you added that reference, but I may be wrong); and doi:10.1057/9781137016546_4. I'm thinking a graf about the same length as the paragraph on gender in Reception. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AleatoryPonderings I have access to The Dark Fantastic and Politics of Harry Potter, but not the journal paper; I'll give them a read and see what I can come up with. At a brief glance, some of the pureblood vs. mudblood stuff may fit better in Themes than Reception, but can't tell without reading. They are quite highly cited. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take a look at "Harry and the Other" and we can get something together. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I added a graf about blood purity, which the commentators talk about more than (our/Muggle-world) race per se, and OD and I discussed the use of Dark Fantastic, which (unlike most commentators) addresses real-world race issues head-on. I'm not delighted with how the section turned out but I've addressed my own concern for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Little thought: what about "Interpretation" instead of "Critical analysis"? I feel like it's simpler and more what we're aiming for, plus "Critical" could easily be misread as "Criticizing-ical". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings, changed to "Literary analysis". Victoria (tk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Works for me - no particular preference for any of the alternatives; was really just a little thought :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck this, as Literary analysis is a good compromise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Any good secondary sources summarizing her philanthropic endeavours? Special:PermaLink/1066334001#Philanthropy is mainly primary sources and news stories. I know Pugh's intro has a little bit and this book may have a bit more but I can't get a good preview. Published by an imprint of Bristol University Press, which I'd never heard of before looking it up, but as a university press it should be ok. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Pugh has some, and Smith has a chapter, but Smith is dated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings I will work in Smith and Pugh on this today, as I pick up the leftover bits of both that have not been used yet (recognizing that some trimming and reorganizing of all bio bits will later be needed). I believe both sources have enough coverage that it should be possible to remove primary concerns. (And I owe you an Errington check.)

  Vanamonde93 when you have a free moment, might you strike anything that you entered in the original #To Do List that is now addressed/resolved? These pages are getting long, and I have set up Archives on talk where we might begin to remove old sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll do so, but I do think it's more urgent that we move away from long multi-topic discussions like this one into threads by topic; page length is not yet causing me troubles, but finding where someone pinged me in this sub-section is near impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  AP, I'll set up a section on talk to continue this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good to know; considering that I have now set up archives on talk, maybe we should all move towards threads by topic on FAR talk, and this page only for a weekly update for the Coords? I am guilty of randomness as to what I put here and what I put on talk. Also, Vanamonde93 (no ping :), if you have a chance, please let me know on talk if you agree with archiving spent discussions there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Update 14 January

The progress here has been amazing, but I've now surfaced to take a critical look after spending more than a week reading sources and working in a sandbox. Keeping in mind this is a rewrite to FA quality, at this point I'd suggest a pivot towards the following issues:

1. Sourcing. The sourcing throughout needs evaluation. This is a rewrite to FA standards, which requires high quality sourcing. In my view, there are too many low quality and web sources, many of which can be eliminated. Taking a look at only the first 10 citations (of 400+) shows The Bookseller, Guinness World Records, BBC News, CNBC, MSM, Business Insider, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times, Time Magazine. I realize these are used in the lead, which we've not redone yet, but it illustrates the problem throughout. Almost all of these can be and should be swapped out. Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC is helpful for evaluating sourcing and verification.

   Agree that some of the news sources are substandard (I have a particular issue with WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, as I ran a RfC on it a while back) but what's the problem with orgs and papers of record such as BBC—which is explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC as a high quality source—and The Times? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

   I think there's still unnecessary citation density throughout, with multiple citations per sentence in many cases in the sections beyond the bio section. Just my view though. Also, we should standardize short/long cites; sometimes both are present in a sentence or a para. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Summary style - this article should be written in summary style throughout. Because there are so many sub-articles, detail can go there. At the moment there's still bloat, excessive wordiness, excessive detail, etc.
3. Reception - suggest following this excellent essay Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for that section
4. Prose - needs a copyedit throughout.
5. Speed - in my view the work is progressing at too fast a pace, too many discussions in too many places, to the point that's impossible to keep track. If we slow down a bit, read the sources closely, pay attention to prose issues, etc., it will pay off at the end.

I'll start working on pulling substandard sources, and copyediting from top to bottom (I know we're rewriting, but I can ce the newer sections). Victoria (tk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Sorry, won't get to this. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie, I listed my concerns about the speed at which we are proceeding on your talk page before I saw this post.

On 1 sourcing, we are still using children’s books as a source, when we have others. Should we be using The Scotsman at all, when it basically repeats Smith, or should we prefer Smith? I dunno; asking. I do think we can make use of some news sources, because of the absence of an authorized biography, but we seem to be overusing some at this point.

On 2 summary style, I do not understand why so much critical analysis is not being written in the sub-articles, and then summarized back to here. But I am not a literary type, so what do I know. On a medical article, I would write “Management of … “ before trying to summarize back to the overview article. An FA on a figure of this importance will need to use a strict application of SS, and we need to leave room for her life, which is still missing here.

On 3 reception, defer to literary types.

On 4 prose, please please leave final polish, copyedit, MOS ‘til later in the process; think structure, length, summary style, due weight, for now. I have hesitated to begin chunking in my ideas on early life for fear of edit conflicts as my sucky prose inevitably will need copyediting. We can smooth prose last, particularly knowing now that we have several fine writers on board.

On 5 speed, I feel responsible for the early pressure, as I tried to forestall what I viewed as premature delist declarations. But once Nikkimaria indicated we could slow down, that was the path to take. We have moved prematurely to discussion of the most difficult parts of the article (transgender), when we still have much work to do here on the basics. We need to keep the long view here; FAs are not built or restored in a week and we will shoot ourselves in the feet by moving too fast.

Generally, Victoria, I feel like under Life and career, 2.1 and 2.2 are not even written yet, so please don’t start trying to copyedit them. Could we get some feedback on whether people think we should leave sources like The Scotsman, or replace them with either Smith or newer news sources, when they all say the same thing? I have lots of small bits and pieces to add there, which will need smoothing by the rest of you once I do … which sources should we use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings re the sourcing your question is a good one. Keep in mind that I stopped after the first 10, but could have looked at all 400+. Featured articles use high quality sources, scholarly sources if they exist, which they do. For an article like this web sources should be used sparingly, only if something doesn't exist elsewhere, and even that's a judgment call. Let's take a look at the Cormoran Strike section - btw I've not been following the main space edits because of the speed (which is another issue), so I don't know who wrote it or when. The uses 15 sources, including Sunday Times, New Statesman, London Evening Standard, The New York Times, Daily Telegraph, just to look at the first five. This section can adequately be sourced to this NYT article, this Guardian article, and Pugh, page 116. As an aside, Pugh who has all the space in the world give only a couple of sentences to the issue. My preference would be to outsource much of this to the sub article, and emulate Pugh in our main bio article. Victoria (tk) 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia some sections need copyediting now. Going through and copyediting is how I get a sense of what's what. I'll leave the early bio sections, and having spent this much time on won't get to the article until later. Re bio sources, I've not even gotten to them yet! Except for Pugh. Will add that to my mental list. Re critical analysis - there's a devoted section, which honestly can be hacked down more or even pulled down and completely rewritten. That's how I write featured articles, try one thing, let it sit for a bit (in some cases years!), reevaluate, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite. But maybe that's just me. Dunno. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, do go ahead and copyedit the early parts if you want (but they are barebones and I question some of the sourcing), because I am a day or two away from rewriting anyway. Once I am ready to put in text, I’ll give you all a heads up, as I know you will want/need to smooth my prose. Pugh also seems to just rework Smith, so even though Smith is old, it seems to be still the benchmark and more thorough than anything else I have yet read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases I agree that book or journal > news. Given the high visibility of this page, though, I do think WP:V (in spirit, if not in letter) suggests that we should not eliminate good news or web sources simply because the material is available in book form. Pugh is a case in point. Unquestionably the best broad-sweep survey of Rowling around, but one needs access to ebrary or JSTOR to get it for free online. For a page that gets roughly 600,000 views a month, doubtless most of which do not come from people with university subscriptions, it seems unfair to insist on using the absolute best source if there are high quality, more accessible alternatives. (Incidentally, although Pugh is Tison Pugh (yes, I stubbed that the other day, but he passes WP:NPROF), it's not as if University of South Carolina Press is the crown jewel of academic publishing—so I would hesitate to say he's clearly better than a thoroughly reported piece in a newspaper of record.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am finding most sources are telling the same story, which makes me lean towards more use of those that are freely available to readers. That is why I have left The Scotsman so far (our internet archive links are easily readable, as opposed to getting a subscription to read other sources); I am finding little variance, and in those cases where I do, working it in to footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that if one section is adequately covered in three high quality sources, two of which are available online, then there's no need for fifteen. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says "representative survey of the relevant literature". Literature is the operative word there, and it's not saying that every section should be stuffed with as many sources as can be found, which is a common misconception. I can also only reiterate that this an FA rewrite. The bar here is different. This is not meant as criticism; if I were reviewing for FAC, it's the first thing I'd mention. In my view, some web sources are fine, but there are too many right now. If this is a sticking point, I'll wait until it gets sorted. Victoria (tk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I support the general idea of reducing WP:OVERCITE in favour of fewer, better sources. I would only ask that, if/when you or others are pruning sources, you keep the idea of accessibility as well as quality in mind. So not a sticking point unless, say, all of J._K._Rowling#Cormoran_Strike were replaced with a cite or two to Pugh. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To both, so would this work? As long as we link things like The Scotsman, NYT, The New Yorker as at least one citation, we have provided accessibility for our readers, so maybe then I can switch most of the rest of the citations to first choice Pugh, second choice Smith and so on? (I am going on a fifteen-minute stall on google play loading Smith, so ugh on that … ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "This section can adequately be sourced to this NYT article, this Guardian article, and Pugh, page 116.". One book; two web sources. But this is only an example. A quick dipstick at the refs shows 14 uses of Daily Telegraph. Maybe we don't need those? It's hard to tell without getting in, copyediting, tightening prose, looking at the sources. It's a process. Victoria (tk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to SG's idea, and (as an example, keeping in mind that, as VE says, this is not something that will be determined in the abstract but is rather a judgment call while working through the prose) agree with the suggested approach to CS. The Daily Telegraph is AFAIK also a paper of record (to this American, sort of like the Wall Street Journal to The Guardian's New York Times, though I obviously defer to people from the UK on this), and is green here. So it's high quality, but from an accessibility perspective isn't great because the paywall is unusually strict. All in all, if it can be replaced with something else, I'd probably support that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle and AleatoryPonderings: I started trying to swap in Pugh for some of the lesser-quality sources, but ... futile. The entire first two sections need to be rewritten. Almost all of the lesser quality sources can be eliminated, and I will do that (following the plan above, to preserve some free full newsy text links for reader accessibility while prioritizing Pugh, then Smith), but it makes no sense to do it piecemeal, as too much needs correction. Today archive.org has some sort of maintenance outage, so I'm making little progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm running into. There's not sense in doing it piecemeal, we just have to hack them out. It's very slow going because everything has to be checked, some sources are old behind paywalls (the BBC has just cut me off, the Wash. Post old articles behind a wall though I have a subscription to the paper), and those are citing stuff from 10 years ago. At this point secondary authors should have published what we need. It's taken forever to fix the teeny tiny "Press" and "Religion" sections and I've only started. Victoria (tk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

New To do list

Per commentary above and on talk, let's start keeping it on talk: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#To do list SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Update 24 January. Most of the article has been revamped and is in good shape. The pace has slowed to allow for ongoing work in all Literary analysis sections. Work on the Transgender section and the Lead is still pending, with a list for final fine-tuning on talk. There has been no instability since one brief edit war on 5 January.

@Vanamonde93, Victoriaearle, and AleatoryPonderings: If you can review #Update 8 Jan and #Update 14 January above, and transfer anything still useful there to either the To do list on talk, or a new section on talk, we could archive those sections. (Everything I have entered on this page is resolved or struck.) NO Hurry, but let me know when I should archive those sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've struck or moved every thread I started. (Or, I think I have ...) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry, I put up a list thinking I'd be able to pitch in to work through. Much of the work is underway so I've struck. When I can get back here and work for a bit I'd like to look through the article again re sourcing and citation density. It's not a big deal but at least from my perspective it's difficult to edit when the text is interspersed with what appears to be more sources (often in long citation form) than necessary. Again that's just my perspective. Victoria (tk) 21:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There will be time :) I am comfortable with the citation style as is. It consistently uses short form for books and journal articles, and longer for web citations, which keeps the Works cited to only major journal articles and books, rather than duplicating every websource used. (It happens to be the same style I use in articles I write.) With the exception of the sections we haven't yet worked on, I am comfortable with the sourcing. But we should explore other opinions on talk. (Different than a James Joyce or Ernest Hemingway, we can't entirely avoid news and websources for a popular, contemporary author.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind; have struck. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper

Notified: DoctorJoeE, Nishkid64, Indopug, Maclean25, Ealdgyth, TJRC, Sceptre, JeffUK, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Oregon, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Aircraft, WikiProject FBI, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-26

Review section

Thirteen years have passed since the article's promotion as Featured Article in March 2008. Issues about reliability of sources were raised initially by Hog Farm. Among the list of questionable sources are self-published sources and forum posts. There have been edits since the thread there was created at least two weeks ago. However, AFAICS, edits not yet challenged have been usually cleanups. Other edits have been reverted. The sourcing issue still hasn't been addressed. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - sourcing/original research concerns. Additionally, the article is currently the subject of an ongoing content dispute, so the recent editing history is mainly just reverting. Hog Farm _Talk 15:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC – per Hog Farm – zmbro _(talk) 20:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review include sourcing and original research. DrKay (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - the article has been and continues to be a magnet for additions of unreliable sources/original research/synth, the questionable sources identified by me on the talk page haven't been purged from the article, and there doesn't seem to be anyone providing a watchful eye to keep the iffy additions out. Hog Farm _Talk 19:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Striking delist for now, as work has been occurring. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I cleaned out some of the more egreiously poorly sourced bits that had accumulated since 2008, but ideally the article needs a looking over by someone who's read the relevant books to ensure content - source integrity, since I suspect it's possible for claims to have worked their way in that aren't really supported by the references. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: After taking a quick look through this article, I have some concerns:

• The suspects section is incredibly long, with possible WP:OVERSECTION and I am unsure why these people are highlighted when, as the article states, thousands of people were considered. Did a source compile a list of most likely suspects? I don't think it's great that the article states that these are notable examples without a citation.
• The Further Reading section needs a good trim, with high-quality sources used as citations in the article.
• I don't think Inside Edition (ref 151) is a high-quality source.
• Reference formatting is inconsistent. A "Works cited" should be split from the "Further reading" to prevent Harv errors.

@SnowFire: are you interested in continuing to fix up this article? If not, I'll recommend delisting unless someone else steps forward. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, I'm just doing minor cleanup, since at least some of it is low-hanging fruit. I will say that I suspect the article is at least GA quality? But FA quality really needs someone who's read at least two or three of the major books to affirm that the article matches their conclusions and the references check out, IMO.
• While the suspects list is long, it does appear that these are all suspects who were sufficiently "notable" that they at least got local news to run stories about them. So it's not a total indiscriminate list of people the FBI checked. I suppose it could theoretically be split from the article on size concerns but I think that would be a bad idea and an invitation for overmuch detail in the split-off article.

• I think I am more concerned about who isn't on this list: What determined the criteria of persons included as suspects in this article? Right now it seems like suspects were added as editors found sources for them. I would rather have a source generate a list of notable suspects to talk about on this article, if possible. I'm not to concerned about a spinout article: the FA criteria doesn't require spinout articles to be of any specific quality so it might be better for Cooper's article to have the info spunout. Also, I will note that many suspects were not present in the article when this was at FAC. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm, not sure I'd trust any single repository of all suspects myself, especially for people who were only raised as suspects after a book might have been published. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree about Inside Edition, I rolled my eyes a bit when I saw that used as a source - I removed both references that used it and made sure that what remained went back to the more reliable sources.
• I'm not seeing any citation errors? The sfn refs appear to work fine for me at least, but maybe I'm missing something. SnowFire (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I use a script, available here: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors that highlights harv link errors. The errors are caused by the script seeing the books listed in a Further reading section. I'm not sure if this is a specific requirement for FA criteria, but I would suggest that sources used in the article are listed in a Works cited section, not Further reading. Also, there are many book sources that are not in sfn templates: either all books should use sfn templates, or none should. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'd argue that's the script being overly strict and marking something an error that's merely not the usual style - I can imagine an integrated "sources and further reading" section done well that'd be unusual but not invalid. That said, on closer inspection, the "Further reading" section had too much self-published quasi-spam, and the relevant books were actually cited rather than being "pure" further reading, so went ahead and converted the section into a Bibliography, integrating the occasional single citation into the material. SnowFire (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• As an additional comment if anyone wants to take a go at cleaning this one up - it seems that the Gunther 1985 book reference ("D. B. Cooper: What Really Happened") is pretty heavily contested by some sources that essentially accuse Gunther of making stuff up. It may well still be a notable book in Cooper lore to discuss (apparently some people got ideas about Cooper accusations from reading the book and it influenced perceptions of the case) but it sounds like it probably should be used very carefully, if at all, for the basic factual tale of what's known - but it's reasonably heavily cited at the moment, included in the "this is the boring consensus view" sections rather than the "here's some wild-eyed conspiracy theories that are notable but probably wrong" sections where such sources might be more acceptable). SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've started working on the issues laid out here in hopes of potentially saving the article from delisting. Thanks SnowFire for the good feedback and your work so far. ––FormalDude talk 22:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've addressed the issue of the Gunther 1985 book raised by SnowFire. All Gunther references are now verified, corroborated by an RS, or have been removed.

  I've also addressed the issue of the list of suspects raised by Z1720. There are now 3 references that are lists of notable suspects. ––FormalDude talk 18:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Nice work. I think this one might be savable. Were you able to read Himmelsbach's book at all, as that one appears the "best" book on the FBI's take? I suppose I can go down to the library and check it out if you haven't. I think that's my main concern left.

  To reply to myself: I suppose "be the change you want in the world", so I went ahead and put on a hold request for Himmelsbach's book at the library. It'll take a few days to come in though, so a matter for next week. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  One other note: Is "The Crime Book: Big Ideas Simply Explained" really a RS that you added? I didn't take a close look, but the title isn't encouraging - I'd definitely rather stick to literature that's specifically about Cooper, not passing mentions in a crime book that may simply be repeating Stuff They Read Somewhere Else.

  Another (minor) issue with a reference: Currently Rhodes & Calame's book on the McCoy hypothesis (which they advocate for) is used as a source to describe the evidence against the McCoy hypothesis (ref 158 that starts with "Some notable examples" and is really more a footnote than a citation). That's very fair of them and fine to include, but it would be nice to verify that there's some "neutral" source that concurs with this as well. SnowFire (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  "The Crime Book" is an RS that I added. It's written by multiple non-fiction crime authors and a historian. While it may be tertiary in nature, I have no reason to doubt its reliability.

  I have been having trouble finding the book by Himmelsbach, I'm not sure my library has it. Much appreciated if you are able to help with that at all.

  I think I see what you're saying with the third reference. It appears that ref 158 verifies the claim that the FBI did not consider him a suspect. ––FormalDude talk 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Himmelsbach's book came in earlier than I expected at the library. There's definitely been some citation drift since the FAC in 2008, and I've realigned some of the content to match the citation better diff. The bit about Cooper demanding takeoff occur with the aft staircase deployed and arguing over it is not in Himmelsbach - maybe it's real, but it's from somewhere else if so. Marked it as citation needed for now; can just remove it as well. Also requested a cite for the airplane landing at 10:15 in Reno. If we can't dig anything up in a few days, can just remove that too. SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @FormalDude: - Any interest in attempting to track down where this claim of an argument between Cooper & the crew over taking off with the aft staircase deployed is coming from? If not, I can just remove it, since my browsing of the sources didn't turn it up - but maybe I just missed it. Other than that, any feelings about the article, and if it's keepable-as-FA? It's a little unsettling how much the article is sourced to random news stories, but as best I can tell, Himmelsbach really is the only good "neutral" book on the topic... most all of the other books are also "let me show off my STUNNING NEW THEORY that Roderick G. Badguy was Cooper" on the side, which makes them a bit problematic to use. SnowFire (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks for the ping, SnowFire. Yes I'd be happy to look into those two claims that failed verification. This source seems to provide corroboration: https://offbeatoregon.com/1306b-db-cooper-part-2-the-getaway.html. ––FormalDude talk 01:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'm a bit skeptical that article is sufficient on its own as a source (website maintainer is apparently a college professor in Communications, which... isn't perfect for a FA [4]), but to his credit, he cited his sources, and it turns out his source was in Gray's book. Also it seems that the library has an electronic copy of it; updated the article to match. I'll try and look through Gray's book a bit more and see if there's any other adjustments to be made. SnowFire (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry about the delay. I've finished reading / skimming Gray's book "Skyjack"... while it does thankfully cite sources in the back, it's a little chattier than I'd prefer. Anyway, the bad news is that I don't think it really adds that much, since Gray's New Yorker article is already cited a bunch, and the book adds a lot of uninteresting filler. The good news is that it does seem to basically confirm the slants given in the article. This definitely isn't a perfect article, and there's a lot more citing of random news stories than would be ideal, but given that nobody has published a real scholarly takedown on the topic other than maybe Himmelsbach (who can't be used for post 1980s developments), I think it may be the best on offer. So a weak keep? There's still some sources I don't like (Waymarking for the most obvious one, but it's also used to cite a trivial fact that is infuriatingly offline), but I think the article is in acceptable shape. Happy to take another hack at it if there's specific areas of concern. Thoughts, @FormalDude:? SnowFire (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Heavy metal music

Notified: WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Music, Music genres task force, Sergecross73, Ceoil, Piotr Jr., Aza24, Ihcoyc, OnBeyondZebrax, ‎Madreterra, talk page notification 2021-12-04

Review section

The issues about the "Women in heavy metal" section were initially raised in April 2021. To this date, the section has been still tagged for undue weight and insufficient worldwide representation. Furthermore, some more statements are tagged with "better source needed" and "citation needed". Also, four non-free audio samples remain, yet I wonder whether they comply with WP:NFCC. This isn't an FARC yet; rather this Featured Article still needs further attention and improvements. George Ho (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@George Ho: - why were no individual users notified about this? The original FAC nominator (User:Ihcoyc) from 2003 has still edited some over the last few months, User:OnBeyondZebrax is a significant contributor and is still active, as is User:Madreterra; User:Ceoil appears in the top 10 in authorship, is still active, and is quite good with music articles. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I was gonna notify users until you pinged. Also, I was in a rush when I was creating this review. Well... the users have been notified. George Ho (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: @George Ho: I do not see the required talk page notification two to three weeks before nominating. Where is that? Absent that, this FAR is out of process and should be placed on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What about the "‘Women in Metal’ section balance issues" section made months ago? Isn't that enough? If we put this on hold, how else do I complete the process besides awaiting two to three weeks? --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That was not a WP:FARGIVEN. As Ceoil is the editor most likely to take an interest in this article, maybe we should hear from him before placing on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think the article suffers from a lot of the issues that FAs from prior decades have - the standards have gotten higher, and I think this one no longer meets the modern standards. I also don't want this entirely tagged on the "Women in metal" entirely. As someone who's watched over (but mostly not written) the article, it's been subject to countless sexist efforts to scrub women from the article. It's wrong for it to be entirely pegged on those sections. In general, the article struggles with completely documenting more modern happenings from 2010 to the present. Which makes sense - I can testify, as someone who's been watching over it for many years - there aren't any experienced writers consistently adding to the article. It's fallen out of date. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sergecross73 is bang on the money wrt the page; thats exactly what's happened. I'd be happy to let this go, as in am not in the mood (and dont have the time) for saving, much as I still love metal. This was a FAR save some 10 years ago, with Wesley and Geist, and both of them are long gone from the project (or have moved under diff guises to diff subject matter). Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Re misogyny, hear loud and clear and have edited a bit, and re watchlisted. One thing to be clear, that tendency is more typical of the "lower" orders of metal (eg mid 80s NWOBHM, all hair-metal and late period nu-metal), whose fans are more into the perceived "attitude" rather than the music and contain an high % of, well basically, misfits and incels. Thinking about how to couch, but a mention is now in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• I appreciate it. Yeah I have no problem with altering or reworking, or adding more nuanced explanation. There's just been a number of people try to go the opposite route and just delete anything that's not 100% positive about the genre. I mean, all fanbases try that sort of stuff, but I've experienced it especially at this article. I believe I've largely warded off those attempts, but I just wanted to make sure we didn't go down that road in these discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ceoil is this one salvageable, and are there plans to save? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since Ceoil agrees the FAR is needed, and isn't planning to take it on, I can see letting the FAR go forward, but hope George Ho understands the need for notification going forward; one goal is to not overwhelm those (few) editors who might take on saving the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think I already notified enough related WikiProjects and editors. Also, I created the notification as needed. I also don't intend to have the article lose its status, but I predict that it will, especially if much work isn't done and remaining issues aren't still resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC unfortunately it doesn't look like anyone has stepped up to do the work necessary to save the star (t · c) buidhe 07:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Commenting because I was listed as a major contributor (which isn't really true, I just edited a few things a while back). I was surprised to find the repeatedly disproven notion that the Catholic Church "banned" the tritone interval in this article a few months ago (I've since clarified/removed it). If a completely incorrect idea like that can survive in the article since at least the last 2007 FAR, I have strong suspicions that the depth of research is probably lacking to some extent throughout. Aza24 (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist we're not seeing the kind of edits necessary to overhaul the article and get it to meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 09:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - those more familiar with the subject matter than I (Ceoil, Aza, Sergecross) seem to agree that this does not meet the standards. Hog Farm _Talk 16:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Taking another look, so can we hold for a week for an more in depth assessment. Ceoil (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Recommend Hold so Ceoil can assess the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Have looked over during the day (but not yet edited) and some quick points to supporting holding the voting for now

• Its well written, (mostly) well cited and hasn't changed drastically since a few months after the last FAR when DC Geist continued the expansion.
• The language is a bit excitable in places, but nothing compared to say the recently delisted Punk rock, and don't see significant bloat
• From a scan the sources are mostly grand...with some weeding and pruning needed
• I agree with Aza that some of the music theory and terminology needs work
• The sexism issue that brought this FAR has mostly since been addressed?
• Its quite up-to-date with recent trends...as far as c. 2011...BUT there has been huge fragmentation since with the development of numerous micro-genres, the return of doom, and many types of metal-gaze
• Still only very much looking...sorry this came so late! Ceoil (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see Ceoil is at work here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ceoil? (No edits since the 9th) George Ho, update/status? (It's very time consuming to have to check other nominator's FARs to see where things stand-- please keep us updated periodically so we don't all have to check.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  .... .... .... ......... I checked the article sporadically, and I've not much to say about it. I'll take Ceoil's words about the article. If Ceoil's improvements stopped around that time, then I shall assume that remaining issues are still present and can still affect the article's status. --George Ho (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and addition of Gene Simmons's quote probably doesn't improve much, methinks. The article is too long for me to thoroughly review, so I'll skim through as much as I can... if my review is what you need. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  If you want my further opinion, here it is: I'm unsure whether this blog post, which I just now recovered, is reliable. Also, the article heavily emphasizes on the pre-1980s history and treats 1980s and thereafter as if the music consists of more heavy metal subgenres than the heavy metal itself. I can't say whether it's a good or bad thing. Furthermore, I took two three audio samples to FFD. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

George, if in doubt re sources, remove the ref and ag the claim. I'll be watching, and appreciate the pointers. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. My opinion is that the article is FAC standard, with issues around files (which George Ho, whom I have trust in with him having been most helpful on other music pages) seems to be on top of) and reference formatting. Honestly, I t would be a big job to fix the different ref styles (or lack there-of), but it would be a shame given the article is otherwise, surprisingly, still v good. I am totally over-committed IRL and here for a bit, but if this was let sit for a few months as I work though here and there, that would be great. Afer I report back here on refs, feedback re other issues would be most welcome. The former metalhead and current punk rocker Ceoil (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If Ceoil is planning to work on the article, and if the FAR is to hold, I will work on the citation formatting (but yea, I see lots of problems there, including incomplete citations that I may not be able to track down and possibly unreliable sources). George Ho, pls ping me should my help in citation formatting be needed; I don't really have time to take on that task unless the article is in the process of a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, to be clear, I am willing to take on the burden of standardising the refs, and while there will be some culling (as highlighted above), most pass RS, but are all over the shop in formatting. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you plop in valid sources, I can clean up the formatting; just let me know when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are a star. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 29 January 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[5] interestingly a Guardian opinion piece declared that he was behaving "antithetical to AFL principles" in June 2021.[6] 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, if this is going to be worked on. Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 17 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)

• 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)

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)

Yes, I can work on it later today when I have time. GBRV (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @GBRV: Please ping me here when you are finished your edits and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. GBRV (talk) 16:07, 17 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)

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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist still cites non-RS as mentioned by SG above (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 17 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)

• 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)

Please at least allow me to continue working on fixing the problems first before voting to delist. GBRV (talk) 17:51, 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)

Thanks Sandy! I am working on it, but this month my pace is slower than normal so it may take until January. It's been a bit tough since the sourcing in this article was looser than I expected. I'm also glad that GBRV is pitching in too! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 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)

• @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)

I'll volunteer to edit the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GBRV That sounds great! You have a good editor's eye! I have a couple of not too strong requests on those sections that I'll post on the Joan talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 01:54, 3 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)

Shadow of the Colossus

Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed with Hog Farm's Talk:Shadow of the Colossus#WP:URFA/2020 source assessment, though I'd give some leniency to Kotaku. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Here are some RS that could and probably should be cited, but aren't:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] (just found them in a quick Google Scholar search) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just gonna copy the list from talkpage here for convenience:

Content copied from Talk:Shadow of the Colossus

WP:URFA/2020

A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.

Dubious

• TrustedReviews
• Press Start Online
• The Gaming Intelligence Agency
• Insert Credit (no consensus)
• Cane and Rinse
• Zone of the Gamers
• GameChew
• Find Articles
• ControllerFreaks
• Kikizo (no consensus)
• Thunderbolt (no consensus)
• Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
• Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
• HeyUGuys

Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced

• Neoseeker
• Nintendo Everything

Hog Farm _Bacon 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Re-listing of ones that may need replacing

So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list

• Zone of the Gamers
• GameChew

So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm _Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

    @Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

    • David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

      • I can take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article at present:

• There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made Ico WP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
• A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
• The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
• More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
• The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
• Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
• References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.

Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd be up for taking a shot at salvaging the article, however, a cursory glance reveals a large amount of necessary work that I believe calls for a collaboration. Methinks that some time to determine whether a second volunteer will come forward, a week perhaps, should be taken to bring matters to a head with this article. Some offline matters prevent me from attempting a straightforward one-man job, but in the meantime I'll try to patch up things here and there as time allows. Electroguv (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for the work you have been doing on the article, very helpful. What particular things do you think you need help with?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

    • Wow, thanks for coming forward so quickly! I'll make sure to get back to you in the near term with the suggestions. Electroguv (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Electroguv and David Fuchs: Are there still outstanding issues being worked on here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Pending the response of the other pinged user, my current perspective is that there are still some general text issues across the article (wording, grammar, prose flow etc.) that need to be ironed out, and I think that the Development and Reception sections need an overhaul as regards their coverage and prose construction. As far as those issues go, I'd take the liberty of asking for about five days' worth of extra time to introduce the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Just chiming in that I've seen this ping, but that my wiki-time is currently being focused on arbitration and I will circle back to check the article thoroughly once that's done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Having taken a lot more time than previously expected to add the revisions I've been planning to add to the article, I have to make an update on the situation for the sake of clarity. Substantial changes have been made to the development section; basically, it's been rewritten from scratch, fleshed out and expanded in terms of coverage and structure. The Connections to Ico and Remake subsections of the plot and development sections respectively have been rearranged due to their dubious academic value in the first case and tenuous connection with the overall article subject in the second case. As such, the material formerly present in Ico subsection has been removed altogether (as its associated topic is covered by the new development section), and the Remake segment as well as mentions of the game's PlayStation 3 remastered version have been incorporated into the Legacy section, where their placement seems to be well-judged. While I believe that quite a bit of work still needs to carried out to make the article comply with current FA standards (primarily as regards the reception section), I do think that I'll be able to push the matter through by the end of this week. Many thanks for your patience as always. Electroguv (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Electroguv? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Noticed this ping right away yet I'm replying just now because of real-life matters. They are also the reason that has been preventing me from adding changes at a swift pace as befits the urgency of this review. That said, my goal of completing the article revision is not frustrated despite the setbacks, and I intend to proceed promptly with my planned edits. If I might make so bold as to ask, I need a timeframe of 5-6 days to introduce the changes. I'd be truly grateful if granted the opportunity to make good on my promise and to see that this article keeps its status. I am much obliged to be able to count on your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

    That's not an issue, this FAR will stay open as long as improvements are being made. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There have only been a few edits since 17 October and they are mostly minor. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving as discussion seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe what is outstanding here? There have been no edits since October 30, and Electroguv hasn't edited since Oct 22. If there is still work outstanding, is it time to move to Delist? We have at least half a dozen noms sitting at the bottom of the page, and I question how long we should leave them here if weeks are elapsing with no work progressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like Hog Farm's initial concerns about sourcing that started off the review have been mostly fixed with the exception of Kotaku (pre-2010). The only obvious issue that sticks out for me is that it does not cite any of the academic sources I found and listed earlier in this FAR, which could potentially be a comprehensiveness/well-researched issue. But I really don't know enough about what's expected for video games to say. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Electroguv and David Fuchs: do you support keeping or delisting the article at this point? (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

In replying to the collected queries concerning the current state of things with this article, I would first like to plead for a reconsideration of the motion to close. I should mention that my preceding inability to edit the article has to do with IRL issues related to sickness, so the setback that may have contributed to the present dilemma was certainly not intentional on my end, if that point has any relevance. Should you find this circumstance to have any merit, I would like to reaffirm my focus on ironing out the remaining issues with the article (including the ones highlighted above) and ask for the liberty to complete my planned article revision, with reference to the nominator's reply to my October 17, 2021 statement. I am fairly confident about being able to carry out the necessary changes by the end of the week (in particular, the Release subsection is still incomprehensive to my eyes), and so I once again request to be granted the opportunity to implement the edits within the allotted timeframe. I will try to incorporate information from the academic sources described above should I discover the citable parts to be immediately relevant to the subject matter, and will endeavor to make visible progress with the text in the short run. Of course, the final say rests with this article's reviewers, so I can only hope that I have been able to make an acceptable case for the reversal of the FARC motion and that a quality overhaul of this article is still within the realm of possibility. In any event, I will defer to your ultimate decision. Thank you for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Electroguv, I wish you a quick recovery from your illness. Definitely the article looks in much better shape than when we started. I think it was looking like editing had stalled, but if there are still plans to improve the article, I definitely agree that it should stay open. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also archived all the dead citations where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've finally managed to gather the necessary sources for retooling the Release and Reception sections. I'll be implementing the tidbits shortly. Electroguv (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  There have been no edits to the article since 22 December. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.

• Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
• Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
• The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances

While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog Farm _Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.

I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.

I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.

I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good (unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog Farm _Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: There's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sections, especially in the Historiography section. The last edit to this article was two weeks ago. Have improvements stalled? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog Farm _Talk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Should we just get rid of the Historiography section? It's one of the things that were added after the FA promotion and which may not have been up to the same standard. The article is already very long, and all of the detail about the various editions of Sherman's memoirs and correspondence may not be necessary. Moreover, the start of that section is not well referenced, not well integrated with the rest of the article, and perhaps too opinionated for Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • The stuff at the beginning of the section about how he was viewed in the north and south postwar may be useful, but the publishing details and namesakes are poorly sourced and probably undue. Hog Farm _Talk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Eb.hoop2: - As I've seen no objection to removing the bulk of that material, I have just done so now, leaving only the first paragraph of that section. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe that all of the specific issues that have been raised here have already been addressed in the edits. If there are other problems that need fixing someone should say what they are. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Review by Z1720

@Eb.hoop2 and Hog Farm:, I am going to conduct a copyedit and review of the article. I will post questions and comments below if I feel like I can't fix them on my own. Let's see if we can get this out of FAR!

• "Sherman embarked from New York" is this New York State or New York City?
  • Done. It's now identified as New York City, although I think this was clear enough in the context. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Sherman, along with Ord, assisted in surveys for the sub-divisions of the town that would become Sacramento." This needs a citation or to be removed.
  • Done. The passage has been improved and a citation given. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1874, with Sherman having become world-famous, their eldest child, Marie Ewing ("Minnie") Sherman, also had a politically prominent wedding, attended by President Ulysses S. Grant and commemorated by a generous gift from the Khedive of Egypt. (Eventually, one of Minnie's daughters married a grandson of Confederate general Lewis Addison Armistead.)[20] Another of the Sherman daughters, Eleanor, was married to Alexander Montgomery Thackara at General Sherman's home in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 1880." This seems like a lot of extra information about his kids. Should this be summarized? Why is it important in Sherman's article that Minnie had a prominent wedding, and that one of her daughters married a descendant of Armistead?
  • I would support removing all or most of this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. The material has been removed. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• "and he relocated to New York on behalf of the same bank. When the bank failed during the financial Panic of 1857, he closed the New York branch." New York state or New York City?
  • Done. It's now identified as New York City. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• "He received a telegram summoning him to Washington on June 7." Who summoned him? Why?
  • The sentence has been removed because I couldn't easily find a reference for the precise date and contents of the telegram. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the article needs more information about the First Battle of Bull Run. The article alludes to a Union loss, possibly due to Sherman's decisions as a military officer, but this is not sufficiently explained.
  • Agree. I consulted a book about Vicksburg I have that has a summary of Sherman's early career, and it refers to him as "exemplary" at Bull Run, which contradicts the Holden-Reid source a bit (Holden-Reid seems to refer to errors made by Sherman) Hog Farm _Talk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • See discussion below. I've added some detail on the subject and I personally think that it's now adequate for the purposes of this article. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• For the Vicksburg section, it starts with a long blockquote. Can this just be summarized and used as prose?
  • I vote to keep the quote. I find that it's a nice change of pace to have a long quote every one in a while, when it's relevant and the writing is good. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• "generally regarded as a politically motivated distraction from the effort to take Vicksburg" regarded by whom?
  • I have removed this statement, as I'm not convinced that it's necessarily accurate. Sherman thought it was worthwhile, and the Miller 2019 source, which is one of the best sources on Vicksburg published in the last few years, notes that the Union admiral in the theater at the time (David Dixon Porter) also approved, that Grant was convinced of its value, and that taking Arkansas Post removed a sizable Confederate post in their rear that could have caused problems later. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I added back something on the subject. The one who thought that Arkansas Post was a politically motivated distraction was Grant, who got along very poorly with McClernand. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• " According to military historian Brian Holden-Reid, Sherman finally "had cut his teeth as an army commander" with the Jackson Expedition." The jargon of "had cut his teeth" needs to be explained.
  • It's actually an idiom, rather than jargon. I'm not entirely sure how to explain/rephrase this, so I've linked the phrase to Wiktionary. Hog Farm _Talk 18:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It's indeed a common idiom. I don't think the Wiktionary link is necessary, but I'm happy to keep it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to Chattanooga. I'll continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2: - I recently picked up a book about Sherman's March to the Sea, which will hopefully be helpful for this. I probably can't solve the Bull Run one with the sources I have, though. Hog Farm _Talk 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I really don't think that Bull Run calls for more information in this article. Sherman was not a leading commander in that battle. He was at the head of one of the four brigades in one of the five divisions in one of the two units of the Union army in the field (see First Bull Run Union order of battle). The key points to convey are simply: a. that the Union suffered a disastrous defeat at Bull Run, b. that Sherman was one of the few Union officers to perform well under fire, and c. that the Union defeat left Sherman with considerable self-doubt and apprehension about the outlook of the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • As a non-expert in this topic or Sherman, I did not know what this battle was in connection to the Civil War. Furthermore, I did not understand Sherman's connection to this battle and was further confused when the article talked about Sherman's outlook of the war based on this battle. I think additional information on the battle and how it connects to Sherman's life is warranted to help give context to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I've gotten a couple of those above addressed, but I don't think I can do a whole lot more due to time constraints and sourcing access. Hog Farm _Talk 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Eb.hoop2: I think you are in a better place to address concerns, because you know more about this topic than I do, and I am entering a busy time in my real life. When the above concerns are addressed, (except First Battle of Bull Run, as that might need a separate conversation) please ping and I will do another review. If others can't address the concerns, I will try to tackle them in a few weeks; please ping me if that's the case (FA co-ords please ping me before considering delisting if no one responds in a while, as I think this is closer to a keep then a delist). Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z1720 and Hog Farm: I think that all of the concerns raised above have been adequately dealt with (see my point-by-point comments above). Also, I've now actually gone through the entire text and made the copyedits that I thought were called for. Personally, I'm happy with the current state of the article and would vote "keep". Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2: Thank you so much for doing this work. The article looks amazing, and you had a huge part in that. I have added some thoughts below:

• "His father, Charles Robert Sherman, a successful lawyer who sat on the Ohio Supreme Court, died unexpectedly in 1829." Any idea on how he died?
  • He died of typhoid. I've now added this info, with a ref. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Do we need the quote from Sherman about his time at West Point? I feel like it is repeating or contradicting information in the previous paragraph.
• "promoted to the substantive rank of captain." What makes this rank "substantive"? Can we delete that word?
  • No, this is necessary. The previous paragraph notes that he'd already been made a brevet (i.e., honorary) captain. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• In early life: "Sherman would marry his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, at age 30 and have eight children with her." And in Marriage and Business Career, "On May 1 of that year he married his foster sister, Ellen Boyle Ewing, four years his junior." I think the early life sentence can be deleted.
  • I personally don't see a problem with this slight duplication. The first sentence occurs in the context of a description of Sherman's foster family. The second appears chronologically, describing his actual marriage. People might well not read such a long article as this one all the way through, and the information is interesting in both of those distinct contexts. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• "he returned to California to wrap up the bank's affairs there." Was this to "wrap up" the NYC branch affairs, or the whole bank? Also, I think wrap up can be replaced, maybe "to close the bank in San Franscisco" or "cease the operations of the bank."
  • I've now edited this slightly. It now indicates that Sherman went to California to "finalize the bank's outstanding accounts there". I also added a ref. to Holden Reid's bio. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Is the first paragraph in "First commissions and Bull Run" section chronological? It gives a sentence about how his first command was of soldiers who fought in the First Battle of Bull Run, then explains Sherman's role in that battle. I think this paragraph needs to be rearranged.
  • I don't see a need to re-arrange this. First comes a description of Sherman's assigned command, together with the statement that it fought at Bull Run. This is followed immediately by an account of what happened at Bull Run, and of Sherman's role in it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• "This was to set a precedent for future behavior by his armies. The capture of the city of Atlanta made General Sherman a household name." This needs a citation.
  • I've now re-arranged and partly re-written this part. First comes the description of the fall of Atlanta, and then (in a separate paragraph) a discussion of its impact on the 1864 election. I added a ref. on the latter. I took out the sentence on "precedent", which was slightly vague, as well as unsourced. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Sherman and Hood played a cat-and-mouse game in northern Georgia and Alabama" I think cat-and-mouse needs to be replaced with a more literal explanation, per MOS:IDIOM
• "Thereafter, his troops did little damage to the civilian infrastructure...He soon rendezvoused at Goldsboro, North Carolina with Union troops awaiting him there after the capture of Fort Fisher and Wilmington." This section needs a citation.
• "Sherman proceeded with 60,000 of his troops to Washington, D.C.,...he thus had come full circle to the city where he started his war-time service as colonel of a non-existent infantry regiment." This also needs a citation.
• "Those orders, which became the basis of the claim that the Union government had promised freed slaves "40 acres and a mule", were revoked later that year by President Andrew Johnson." Also needs a citation.
  • Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the Strategies section should go after the biography (ie, after his death section) and perhaps the Slavery and emancipation section can be moved to after his biography as well. These sections seem to be an analysis of his life/work, and not strictly biographical information.
• "and in his interview for the film The Fog of War." Needs a citation
  • It's in the movie itself (I've watched it a couple of times). I'm not sure that a further citation is really necessary. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "On July 25, 1866, Congress created the rank of General of the Army for Grant and then promoted Sherman to lieutenant general." Needs a citation.
• "When U. S. Grant became president in 1869, Sherman was appointed Commanding General of the United States Army and promoted to the rank of full general. After the death of John A. Rawlins, Sherman also served for one month as interim Secretary of War." Needs a citation.
  • Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "In 1945, President Harry S. Truman would say: "Sherman was wrong. I'm telling you I find peace is hell."" Not sure that this belongs in this article, as it feels a little bit like trivia. Maybe remove?
  • I've now removed it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "One of Sherman's significant contributions as head of the Army was the establishment of the Command School (now the Command and General Staff College) at Fort Leavenworth in 1881. Sherman stepped down as commanding general on November 1, 1883, and retired from the army on February 8, 1884." Citation needed.
  • I have cobbled together citations for this entire paragraph. Hog Farm _Talk 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Such a categorical rejection of a candidacy is now referred to as a "Shermanesque statement"." Citation needed
• "General Sherman's body was then transported to St. Louis, where another service was conducted on February 21, 1891 at a local Catholic church. His son, Thomas Ewing Sherman, a Jesuit priest, presided over his father's funeral mass. Sherman is buried in Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis." Citation needed
  • I've cited the cemetery he was buried in; the rest still needs cited (I've dropped in a cn tag so it's clear that Warner doesn't cover it all) Hog Farm _Talk 18:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added some info. and a ref. on the funerals. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• "and the "General Sherman" Giant Sequoia tree, which is the most massive documented single-trunk tree in the world." Citation needed.
  • Done. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the External Links section needs a major trim, maybe consult WP:ELNO
• I was in the process of adding alt text for images per MOS:ALT but did not finish. Someone can finish this for me, or I will get to it later.
  • Alt text has been added. I also removed some px sizes per MOS:IMGSIZE but kept it for others that I thought needed it (such as the maps or insignias). Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts after a second readthrough. I am seeing the end in sight! Z1720 (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been able to check out a copy of Marszalek 1992 from the local library, so hopefully I can address more of this now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, Marszalek was not helpful for the specific CN points and is back at the library. Hog Farm _Talk 18:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hog Farm and Eb.hoop2: have all of my comments above been addressed? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
    • When Hog Farm is satisfied, please ping me for a read-through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some duplicate links can be justified, but there are quite a few here that are unnecessary; you can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to view duplicate links.
  • I've taken a crack at reducing the number, keeping 5 or 6-ish where it was not obvious that the linked item was the same as previous. Hog Farm _Talk 07:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• There are 13 instances of the word however, and it is unlikely they are all useful. Ditto for the 17 instances of also. From the top of User:SandyGeorgia: Subsequently, however, in order to, in total, and also—almost never needed and almost always redundant. See overuse of however and User:John/however. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
• Please see MOS:ACCIM; images within sections go after hatnotes (I have fixed this). I have also run scripts to correct faulty WP:DASHes and dates; anyone can install those scripts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Picked up a paperback copy of Kennett (which is barely used) during a recent trip to Branson. I've got a couple other projects on the brain, but hopefully I can get some of these last straggling uncited statements cleared up with Kennett soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been able to start getting refs for the uncited parts. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

HF sourcing comments

• There's still a bit of uncited text, mainly in the postwar career material. I'm trying to chip away at this, but it is slow going.
  • @Eb.hoop2: - This is mainly just down to a couple sentences about the Indian Wars, which I don't have great sources for - any chance you'd be able to knock this out? Hog Farm _Talk 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm unsure about the reliability of two of the web sources: Civil War Home and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. I used the SCV in a GA once, but I don't think it's FA-quality.
  • CWH is replaced, will try to get to the SCV sources soon. Hog Farm _Talk 07:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Use of 19th-century sources needs a double-check to make sure that everything cited to the older sources is okay to do so
• The Sherman tank ref is actually an uncited note (this one should be easy to source, I would think)
  • This is done

A bit slow going, but this is still being worked on. Hog Farm _Talk 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've also gone through the list of references used - not all are cited directly

• Detzler is not used, moved to further reading
• Isenberg not used, removed
• Moved O'Connell to further reading, as it was not used

Also removed a source from further reading that is used as a source. Hog Farm _Talk 07:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Back at this one - hoping I can focus on this for awhile. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720, SandyGeorgia, and Eb.hoop2: - Gonna do a detailed review on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Tecumseh Sherman/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 03:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Done with the original pass. I'm not going to have the sources/time/energy to really be able to address most of this myself. Hog Farm _Talk 06:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eb.hoop2, Hog Farm, and Z1720: I must sincerely apologize that, during my extended wikibreak, I completely forgot that this was my nomination, and failed to adequately follow the progress here. Hog Farm has posted a lengthy list at the talk page here, so I will follow up there. I am wondering, though, as HF has indicated not having the time, sources or energy to continue, if you all still feel this star can be saved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm looking at this as a reviewer; others will have to assess whether they want to work to save it. When they are ready for me to review, they can ping me. Z1720 (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: productive work continues here on talk; I am concerned about overquoting and the difficulties with WP:V because of a haphazard citation style, and there are a few unresolved issues in the text. It will be easier to examine the text more closely once citation and verifiability issues are ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, we've decided to convert to sfns, which will add some time to the FAR, but leave us with cleaner citations and better verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC break

• Delist - the process of converting to sfns and the accompanying scrutiny of sources has turned up a bevy of areas where the sourcing simply isn't up to par. Quite a few areas have been identified as failed verification, better sources needed, or similar. In particular, two whole sections are in quite poor condition. The slavery and emancipation section relies too heavily on Sherman's memoirs, and weaker sources that mainly just copy his statements. It also gives undue weight to a single event involving the 20 leaders, without indicating that those leaders who said those things were selected by Sherman. Additionally, the religious views section is in extremely poor condition, consisting almost entirely of quotes or purported quotes, when biographies of Sherman give secondary analysis to this topic and when there is an entire journal article specifically on this subject listed in the further reading and not used. Hog Farm _Talk 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your specific concern about the coverage of the Savannah meeting with Savannah ministers in the section on "Slavery and emancipation" is, in my view, misplaced. The relevant issues have been covered by many subsequent historians (I personally have read Marszalek, McPherson, and Holden-Reid), and the account as it's currently given in the article is not suspect, although it can be better sourced (as I'm currently trying to do). The Savannah meeting was actually an initiative of Secretary of War Stanton, who got along very poorly with Sherman and who was probably aiming to impugn his treatment of the freed slaves. Sherman invited the black leaders who attended, which is hardly the same thing as "selecting" them (much less "hand-picking" them). The meeting is important not so much for the positive words about Sherman than the black leaders expressed, but principally because it led to the (ultimately failed) project of black settlement reflected in Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 15. Anyway, if one is familiar with the modern secondary literature on Sherman, one will see that there isn't really a substantive issue here.

Which brings me to my main worry. As someone who's read fairly extensively on the subject, I can assure you that the contents of the article are OK and consistent with current scholarship, though of course there's always room for improvement, and this review process has thus far caught some minor factual inaccuracies. The issue is that the standards of citation, which have become so much more stringent since this was promoted to FA in 2006, are rather difficult and laborious to implement here. In an article which (properly) tries to present a readable narrative, information is condensed and organized in a way that doesn't necessarily just collate the secondary sources directly and sequentally, and this makes the sort of point-by-point referencing now required particularly difficult. Nor does it seem reasonable to me to expect editors to read all of the modern biographies of Sherman and give them comparable weight in the referencing. That's just never going to happen.

If this is delisted now, I don't expect there will be enough momentum in the foreseeable future for this to be addressed. I think the process should continue, although it may take some more time. A very considerable amount of work has already gone into this. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is not an FA as it stands. FAs have been built before during the course of a FAR, but that requires a monumental, blitzkreig effort, which has not happened here. The article has been at FAR for the better part of the year, and only recently was the faulty sourcing delved in to. Bringing this article to FA level would require a much broader and sustained commitment to rewriting the article.

Here’s a list of, at minimum, what needs to be done (and my concern is that, the deeper we look, the more we find):

1. There are at least four new scholarly sources that have not been used (now listed in Further reading: Carr, Detzler, O’Connell and Woodworth).
2. Reliance on Sherman’s Memoirs needs to be reduced, considering there is a large body of scholarly sources that could be/should be used. In many cases, even the secondary sources used are only repeating Sherman’s own claims, and all of that needs to be teased out and weighed versus other independent sources.
3. As of now, none of the Memoirs citations meet WP:V because we don’t know from what version came the page numbers, and all need to be checked. In any case, many of those citations to self should be replaced anyway.

   Citations to Memoirs sorted, over-reliance on them remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

4. In every section checked, there are now failed verification, primary source, citation needed, page needed, etc. tags throughout, which all need to be addressed.And there is more that is not yet tagged (when I am reading from my iPad in the car, I often notice things that I can’t edit in until I get back to a real computer).
5. In addition to that, there is a long list here on FAR talk of questions and issues to be resolved.
6. So many of the older sources have multiple versions that I am not confident that we are identifying page numbers correctly. (Current example, but there are others: the two Cox sources list no publisher … from which version of his publications come the citations?)
7. And if all of that sourcing is cleaned up, only then can real examination of the more serious issues be attempted. Does the article meet due weight, is there no cherry picking, etc. It is a big problem that, in every instance of attempting to correct the citation formatting to indicate what source cites what text, deeper issues are found in terms of comprehensiveness and neutrality.
8. Two current examples of this problem are the Slavery and emancipation section, and Sherman’s religion. In the first case, we have only included text that all directly points back to Sherman himself, even though we have on FAR talk a list of independent sources that present a different view. In his religion, we have an entire paper on the topic that is not used. A third example is that somewhere in my “time in the car” reading, I came across one source that delved extensively into Sherman’s relationship with his wife— an area I don’t believe we have covered. All of this contributes to the flavor of the article, which is that we are re-telling Sherman’s story as he told in it, in his Memoirs, rather than giving due weight to independent sources.

It may be possible to locate an experienced FA writer at WT:MILHIST to take this on, [16] but I believe we are well beyond the point of what should be undertaken at FAR, and that a rewrite with a new submission to FAC will be a better approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that are several things going on here that need to be disentangled. This article certainly was lacking in the dense, point-by-point referencing that became the norm for Featured Articles after its original promotion in 2006. This is a complicated task, for the reasons that I've already mentioned. It exceeds my own technical skills and available time, and the intervention of more experienced and active editors is certainly needed. But I think that another aspect of the problem is that much of that technical work so far has been done by editors who're not familiar with the literature on the subject. This is certainly not an aspersion on you, Hog Farm, or anyone else, and I certainly appreciate your effort and contributions. But I think it's clear that one can easily get confused or sidetracked when performing such as task without a sense of what the literature on the subject looks like and what the gist is of the current scholarly take on Sherman's life. Therefore the assistance of experienced editors with more knowledge of the subject is sorely needed.

On the other hand, I strongly disagree with your view that the contents of this article need a significant overhaul. A great deal of work went into writing this article more than fifteen years ago, so that it would provide a fair and readable narrative (as I mentioned above, literal translations of the English text soon became featured articles in several other languages). Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one of the editors involved that effort who's still around. When I first saw this FAR, I purchased a copy of Holden-Reid's 2020 biography and read it, which reassured me that the current scholarly consensus is consistent with the narrative that this article provided (see, e.g., this review, unfortunately paywalled). There's a huge secondary literature on Sherman, who was always an intensely controversial figure for several obvious reasons, but there's also a modern scholarly consensus that's broadly favorable to Sherman's honesty and leadership. I don't see the wisdom in starting now to revisit the controversies from Sherman's old detractors without a clear understanding of where the scholarship on Sherman stands today. That way lies chaos.

Another issue are the many quotes from Sherman's letters and Memoirs used in the article. I suspect that the main reason for this is simply that Sherman is often very quotable, and that his Memoirs are readable and available. I think that this is only really a problem when Sherman's own words are used as the sole reference for a potentially controversial claim or judgment, but I don't see many instances of that in the current text. In any case, fixing that is certainly part of the ongoing labor of improving the references.

Finally, I think that at the current stage some of the tagging of deficiencies in the referencing is excessively literal. For example, I've been trying for a while to find a secondary source to support the statement at the end of the lead that Sherman's Memoirs "became one of the best-known first-hand accounts of the Civil War". But is that really necessary? The body of the article mentions and documents Sherman's publication of his memoirs, the public controversies that the aroused, the response by President Grant, the comment and praise that they drew much later from the critic Edmund Wilson, their inclusion in the Library of America collection, etc. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the citation needed for "one of the best-known" is needed, because it's making a superlative claim. For instance, it's not clear how it'd stack up against, say, Grant's memoirs, or E. Porter Alexander's, or Co. Aytch, all of which I see referenced more often than Sherman's in my readings of sources related to this time period. The article is making a superlative claim, so this needs a citation. Hog Farm _Talk 14:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The Woodward book review says:

• Sherman’s writing was a less heroic business and obviously more enjoyable, done in a period of three years when he was full of beans. He enjoyed the company of women as well as dancing and theater, amateur painting, and quoting Shakespeare. With the Memoirs he did not take the pains he might have in checking facts and called it in his preface to the first edition “merely his recollection of events, corrected by a reference to his own memoranda.” Shortly before publication he wrote his brother, Senator John Sherman, “I have carefully eliminated everything calculated to raise controversy.” Calculated or not, controversy was certainly raised. In a second edition in 1886 (the one used here) he undertook to correct factual errors (some fifty, the editor finds) but not to reconcile his own memory of events with that of others. “I am publishing my own memoirs, not theirs,” he declared somewhat testily.

Another indication that we shouldn't be overquoting from his Memoirs (and we should take care with which version used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a MILHIST-type, and can only contribute cleanup (of which there is/was an overwhelming amount needed). Hog Farm, on the other hand, is a Civil War editor. I understand the unfortunate circumstances that brought this article to where it is, but the concern is that I don't see us getting where we need to be from where we are now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I do understand that Sherman is very quotable, but we should be basing which parts of his Memoirs we are using on the secondary sources, rather than directly quoting Sherman based on our own determination; we have an abundance of secondary sources that could be used. This is shown very clearly in the two sections I’ve given as examples, where Wikipedia is telling Sherman’s story in Sherman’s words, rather than using other secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This is too close paraphrasing. In the ten days since these delists were entered, the amount of text quoted to Sherman has not been reduced, and the four untapped sources have not been introduced. The article still contains blatant breaches of WP:ABOUTSELF, like Sherman’s own statements about his academic record, and in spite of the Woodward book review above, indicating the extent of Sherman’s bias in his Memoirs. The article has been edited, but has not improved on the important matters; Wikipedia’s account of Sherman is still mostly as told by Sherman. Another example of this problem, as yet unaddressed, is how we treat his “breakdown” (an unaddressed colloquialism). We have six sources on FAR talk that discuss severe depression and anxiety (I don’t know what the newer untapped sources add), and yet we never use those sources. Instead, we rely again, excessively, on Sherman’s own accounts and letters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that you're conflating two distinct issues. The first is the extent of the quotations from Sherman's own memoirs and letters. I personally don't see this as a problem, as I've explained elsewhere. Bear in mind that most of those quotes were there when this article was promoted to FA in 2006 (and when literal translations were promoted to FA in several other languages) and I'm not aware of standards having since changed to make this a problem. Still, if there's a consensus to remove those quotes, it shouldn't be difficult to implement.

The much more serious issue that you raise is whether this article is an account of Sherman "mostly as told by Sherman". I beg to differ with that assessment. There's an enormous secondary literature on Sherman. A great deal of it is in fact used, and in every case that I'm aware of, the line taken in this article is consistent with the modern scholarly consensus. I don't see any important instances in which Sherman's own account or assessment is accepted uncritically, much less allowed to stand in contradiction to the evaluation of modern and reliable secondary sources. I trust that this question as it concerns the section on "Slavery and emancipation", which was the main concern when you and Hog Farm asked for delisting ten days ago, has now been adequately addressed by adding references to important secondary sources that make it clear that we're not simply taking Sherman at his word.

As I've already argued in the appropriate section, I see no way to resolve the issue of Sherman's "breakdown" without engaging in OR or NPOV, because there's no consensus about what a modern medical diagnosis of Sherman's conditions might be. In this issue, in fact, what we have to go on is almost wholly the content the letters by Sherman and his family. The current treatment of the subject seems to me satisfactory and consistent with Wikipedia policies.

The outstanding problem, as I see it, is still the detailed referencing. I'm only now beginning to work on clarifying the page-number references to Sherman's memoirs, distinguishing between the public-domain editions in two volumes and the authoritative and modern Library of America edition in one volume. This may take me several days. I note again that more active intervention by editors with direct expertise on Sherman and the US Civil War would be very welcome. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Eb.hoop2, I also think that the religion section needs work. I believe Sandy was able to find a link to the Detzler article about Sherman and religion and I think it's linked somewhere on the talk page of the FAR. Surely there is some useful content in that article. And if you're wondering, I'm the primary author of 13 FAs about the US Civil War, although I'm more familiar with the Trans-Mississippi West than the events further east (Grant's Canal is the only one with a Sherman connection). Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Delist I agree with Hog Farm, and don’t think we can get there from here; the work of trying to sort the sourcing by converting the haphazard citation style to sfns forced closer examination of just what the sources actually were, and has revealed serious shortcomings. A top-to-bottom rewrite to newer sources (which are currently unused) would be needed, there is an extreme over-reliance on Sherman’s own Memoirs, there is too much text that fails verification, there is cherry-picking, very important sources are left out, there is extensive quoting of Sherman himself, and there remains a lack of clarity about many of the sources used; all is documented on the talk page of this FAR. The problems are too serious to be reworked in the course of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist per Sandy. There's been a lot of improvement—for which I can thank all participants in the FAR—but it's just not at FA status at the moment, imo (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Keep For now. Extensive changes are actively being made. Buffs (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Eb.hoop2 and Z1720:: for their opinions. I would assume at least Eb.hoop2 is a clear keep. Buffs (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• For me to endorse a keep, the article would, in my opinion, be able to pass an FAC with today's standards. Hog Farm has brought up sourcing concerns, which are very time-consuming to repair (it took me a year to gather sources for my historical biography FA, and I would imagine that an article about this prominent of a person might require the same amount of sources.) While saddened to see an article delisted, I would rather have an article delisted and brought back to FAC than remain open here for multiple additional months. Saving articles at FAR is supposed to be a quick process, (a few weeks to a maximum two or three months) and I'm afraid that this article, despite the best work of Eb.hoop2, is going to take much more time. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just gonna give a heads up here that I'll be on break for probably over a week, ping me if there are major developments; I'm seeing great work going on here. Hog Farm _Talk 06:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hog Farm now that you're back, I could not decipher if all/any/none of your unstruck items on the talk page have been addressed; could you update? I struck those concerns I had that have been addressed (which is not all of them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia - I've got a few remaining that are still unaddressed. There's still a half-sentence of uncited text in the Carolinas section about the order of secession, the Thanks of Congress still isn't mentioned in the body, and "Sherman's views on Indian matters were often strongly expressed" is still sourced to one of Sherman's letters. My concerns about certain quotes that may be excessive don't seem to have been responded to or rebutted. I will say though, that the majority of my concerns have been addressed and that I am now fairly comfortable with the religion section (it looks like Detzler and Gannon were quite helpful). Hopefully I can give this a re-read over the weekend, but this is trending in the right direction. Hog Farm _Talk 06:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have looked through again (after your break :), and still have several concerns; will transfer and summarize to this page, from talk, as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Keep. As I've been arguing throughout this review, the contents of this article are sound, and what was really required was to improve the referencing to bring it up to the current, exacting standards. This has taken a very long time because I seem to be the only one sufficiently familiar with the contents of the secondary literature on Sherman to engage with that task in earnest, something that I couldn't imagine would be the case when the review started. I'm not a particularly active editor and I've never previously done this kind of work. I thank Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia for their technical contributions, without which I wouldn't even have really known where to start.

Hopefully now all of the major issues raised in the review have been resolved. All the tags have been resolved, while several new and modern secondary sources have been incorporated. In fact, I think that it should be possible to close this review fairly soon. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Hog Farm has indicated on talk those items he raised that have not been addressed. I stopped following the day-to-day editing, but can summarize the issues that I raised on talk that haven't yet been addressed:

• I asked what makes http://www.sfmuseum.org/ a reliable source; that query is unanswered. It is a commercial source that gives none of the usual indications of reliability, and appears to be a website operated by one person; as such, to be reliable, it would need to meet WP:SPS.
• I've asked why we aren't using more recent sources. Carr, a 2015 book, is still listed in Further reading, as is Woodworth (2010). Was Carr consulted? If not useful, why not? And if not useful, why then is it worthy of listing in Further reading? THis is our most recent scholarship--some understanding of why it isn't used should be provided.
• The issue of Shermans' "nervous breakdown" is unresolved. While the meaningless term has been removed from the article, the underlying issue remains, and is an example of what plagues much of the article. While we have multiple reliable sources that discuss Sherman's depression, we never use the word. What we do instead is to rely on Sherman's own Memoirs, with a euphemism from a personal letter: While he was at home, his wife Ellen wrote to his brother, Senator John Sherman, seeking advice. She complained of "that melancholy insanity to which your family is subject".
• Although we have an entire journal article, the issue of religion and how that affected Sherman's marriage is not covered. Again, relying on his own letters, we recount his disappointment in his son becoming a priest, having jumped over the importance of the religious differences between Sherman and his wife, which is well covered by Detzler. By jumping over this issue, we not only leave out what appears to be a significant matter in his personal life, but we fail to adequately explain why it was such an issue with his son. One or two sentences could address this.
• I don't believe any of the issues with respect to Slavery and emancipation with the sources listed here have been addressed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I missed it because my better source needed tag was removed, but "One of the most serious accusations against Sherman was that he allowed his troops to burn the city of Columbia. In 1867, Oliver Otis Howard, commander of Sherman's 15th Corps, reportedly said, "It is useless to deny that our troops burnt Columbia, for I saw them in the act."" is still sourced to an obscure 19th century autobiography and the writings of a Confederate general sometimes accused of being part of the reason Columbia was burned. Given that the burning of Columbia is still controversial to this day, both of these sources are wholly inadequate. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)