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

Shangani Patrol

Notified: Ctatkinson, Indy beetle, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Zimbabwe, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with the sourcing and POV, see the talk page for details. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

• I also have concerns with sourcing:
  • I agree that the 1890s-era newspaper stories are clearly not suitable sources for a FA
  • There are also lots of jingoistic-looking sources from the early 1900s cited, which seem questionable at best
  • "Berlyn, Phillippa (April 1978). The Quiet Man: A Biography of the Hon. Ian Douglas Smith." - a biography of the Rhodesian PM published in Rhodesia during the later years of UDI cannot be assumed to be a reliable source given the extensive censorship of opposition to Smith's regime that was in place by then. The title alone raises concerns given Smith was anything but 'quiet'. This has been found to be unreliable in previous FARs.
  • There is no way that a book published in Apartheid South Africa called "Gale, W D (1958). Zambezi Sunrise: How Civilisation Came to Rhodesia and Nyasaland." can be a reliable source - the title alone is massively racist
  • "Gibbs, Peter; Phillips, Hugh; Russell, Nick (May 2009). Blue and Old Gold: The History of the British South Africa Police, 1889–1980. Johannesburg: 30° South Publishers." - I'm sceptical of anything published by this company, as they do not seem to exercise much if any quality control. Some works seem OK, but lots do not.
    • They're a specialty publisher for regional military history, but they've published some uncritical books on the Rhodesian Bush War written by the (white) participants, so definitely not the most ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle (talk • contribs)
      • Yes, agreed. I've seen some good books published by this company, but also some terrible ones. I suspect that they don't edit or fact check the manuscripts they publish, so the quality of works is dependent on how good a job the author has done. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
        • They also have a partnership with Helion & Co (per their website) so that throws all of Helion's Rhodesia and South African books into question as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
          • Good find. Helion is a strange case: they seem to quality control works they publish themselves and have published lots of works by leading historians. At the same time, they've also published some total rubbish. I've looked at some of the volumes in the Africa @ War series via Scribd, and they were pretty bad. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
            • I own a print copy of the Africa@War book War and Insurgencies in Uganda and have looked at one of theirs on Libya, the Congo, and some on Nigeria. All seem well-enough researched and have accompanying citations and bibliographies, but the Uganda book had some inexplicable typos and there seems to be a willingness to focus on more of the "military" side of things and less on the "history" part. They'll regularly cite the memoirs of mercenaries like Jan Zumbach without much question. I consider just about any part of their work involving mercenaries, Rhodesia, South Africa, to be pulp nonfiction that sells because "oooh sexy [inevitably white] fighterboy adventurer doing cool things in oogum boogum jungle, killing commies". Unfortunately, that's what sells. Remove the white minority governments and mercenaries from the subject in question and the quality of their literature seems to improve. Really not much good for anything involving Rhodesia other than in-text attribution of opinion or strictly noncontroverisal things. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • "Lang, Andrew (1895). The Red True Story Book." - I really doubt that this is a high quality RS
  • "Lott, Jack (1981). Boddington, Craig (ed.). America – The Men and Their Guns That Made Her Great. Los Angeles: Petersen Publishing Company." - I doubt this is a RS, especially for this topic.
  • "Though much of the mythology surrounding the patrol and the site has dissipated in the national consciousness since the country's reconstitution as Zimbabwe in 1980, World's View endures as a tourist attraction to this day. A campaign in the 1990s to dismantle the monument and remove the graves met with strong opposition from both local residents and the Department of National Museums and Monuments, partly because of the income it brings from visitors, and partly out of respect for the site and the history surrounding it." - I can't see where this appears in the cited source. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Durian

Notified: BorgQueen, Zefr, Bunchofgrapes, PhoebeJudge, WP Plants, WP Indonesia, WP Malaysia, WP Tambayan Philippines, WP Singapore, WP Food and drink, WP South Asia, WP India, WP Agriculture, WP Southeast Asia, WP Vietnam, WP Thailand, noticed 2022-02-17

This 2007 promotion needs a bit of a touch-up to continue to meet the FA criteria. As per Sandy's notice, there is uncited text, some dated production statistics, a one-sentence section about environmental impacts that needs additional context, and a lack of discussion about diseases/pests, especially since we have an entire list on that subject. (List of durian diseases and pests). The original FAC nominator has indicated on the talk page that they may not be interested in working this one back up. The #2 editor in the xtools authorship has not been notified because their contributions to the article are mainly just a giant IABot run. Hog Farm _Talk 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Natalie Clifford Barney

Notified: Celithemis, Caeciliusinhorto, WP bio, WP LGBT studies, WP France, WP Ohio, WP US, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, WP Women, talk page notificatoin 2021-12-20

This 2006 promotion, whose original nominator is gone, has some uncited text that will hopefully be easily addressed for a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I've sent a notice to WP:WIG as they have expressed interest in improving FAs under their purview. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A few {{citation needed}}s have already been resolved. Various sources I can see snippets of say that Barney and Brooks met in October 1916, not 1914. XOR'easter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same, though I'm also seeing 1915, and most of the sources I've read comment on there being uncertainty. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added a note mentioning the dispute; if someone has a source for a claim that it was as late as 1916 (the biographies of Barney all seem to say late 1914 or 1915) feel free to add it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Rapazzini estimates October 1916, on page 17. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I've resolved a few further {{cn}} tags; four of the main sources are available through the Internet Archive's library if anyone else wants to help work on this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. When finished with CNs, could you all please check that all of the Other references are actually used as citations, and if not, please trim or remove to Further reading as appropriate? I would not be opposed if you switched to SFNs, as that makes it easier to see what is used and what is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A bunch of stuff was here that I've now moved to the talk page due to SG's reply below. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR pages are not usually sub-sectioned until/unless they become extremely long. The fixes needed here are simple enough that discussion could be on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I moved it all to the talk page and left a note in its place. 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hawksbill sea turtle

Notified: Shrumster, Lfstevens, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Turtles, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, talk page notice 2022-01-16

This article no longer meets the FA criteria. There are a lot of statements that need citations. There is an evolutionary history section that only contains a single paragraph that could be merged somewhere. Almost the entire article could be needed for rewriting and expansion, especially the anatomy and morphology, evolutionary history, etymology, and taxonomic history and conservation sections. There are also some questionable sources have been used at the article such as ref 2? ref 11, ref 12, ref 24, ref 26, ref 54? ref 56? and possibly others. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly not up to par. The lead in 2007 covered more in the article. CMD (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Of the refs mentioned in the nomination statement: Ref 2 looks fine, I'd say CITES is a reliable source for conservation status, ref 11 should probably be replaced for the claim it is supporting, I would say ref 12 is okay as National Geographic is generally fine, 24 needs replaced, 26 is a personal website that should be replaced unless good credentials can be established for author (Ria Tan), and 54 and 56 are definitely fine for reliability (these are listings of who did what taxonomic name from ITIS). Sourcing could be improved, but the nomination statement seems to include some false positives on bad sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Notified: Captain Zyrain, the FAC nominator, has been blocked, Sarsaparilla is a major contributor who also has been blocked. WikiProject United Nations, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics 03-30-2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the extensive issues as noted on the talk page by Hog Farm. These include: original research, unverified statements, sources that should be replaced with higher-quality ones. SandyGeorgia posted concerns about canvassing in the original FAC, and the nominator is blocked as a sock. A peer review in 2015 identified issues with non-NPOV and comprehensiveness, problems which do not seem to have been resolved. Due to the extensive problems with the article, Nikkimaria (FAR co-ord) gave permission to wave the two-week notice requirement. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy delist - is one of the most deficient FAs I've ever. Major POV issues, and/because the sourcing is a mess, relying almost exclusively on groups advocating this. IMO the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 precedents would apply here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy per HF; too much to address at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delist agree w/above (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Californication (album)

Notified: Naerii, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers diff, WikiProject Alternative music, diff, WikiProject Albums, talk page notification 2021-05-04

I am nominating this featured article for review because... as outlined by User:Hog Farm here, this 2007 FA has seen better days and is certainly the Chili Peppers FA (out of five) in the worst state. Outside of sourcing concerns that Hog Farm mentioned, all of the article's single release dates are currently unsourced, the entire outtakes section is sourced by one source (unreliable at that), the critical reception section is a mess, and the article in its current state doesn't really justify what it to the band themselves (i.e. being a fan of the band, it essentially saved them after the comedown that was One Hot Minute and proved they would succeed after Blood Sugar Sex Magik).

I feel like I could do some things to help, but imo the entire article needs a major revamp, and I unfortunately do not have the sources to be able to do that. So here we are. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Yeah, I knew this was gonna happen. All of the RHCP articles that got promoted to FA status are old, and most need some cleanup. I worked on Niandra Lades so I'll see what I can do for this article.

Side note, two RHCP albums (Californication and Blood Sex Sugar Magik) are in the Rolling Stone 500 project, and while realistically that project will never come close to being finished, I still think it's important to keep at the very least those two albums at FA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Famous Hobo I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro: I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Famous Hobo Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and newspapers.com. That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

H.D.

Notified: Ceoil, WP Gender Studies, WP LGBT studies, WP London, WP Lehigh Valley, WP Women writers, WP Women, WP Bio, WP Pennsylvania, WP Women's history, WP Poetry, talk page notice 2022-03-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is some uncited text and after having tried to source some of it and read a bit about the subject I found there is some rather important info either missing or uncited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Some problems are quick to fix, like the external links in the bibliography, which can become footnotes instead. I do think the article is rescuable, though it would be easier if there was a really good, recent biography to rely on for filling gaps. I would have liked to find something from 2000 or later, but even the HD society doesn't point to one. The best sources might be:
  • this 1995 bio
  • from 2011, the MLA Approaches to Teaching H.D.’s Poetry and Prose might have some very useful overviews
  • Susan Friedman’s article in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 45, 2nd series (volume is entitled, Modern American Poets) - HD society calls it "excellent and highly recommended"
  • Herself Defined: the Poet H.D. and Her World, by Barbara Guest, an "authorized biography" from the 80s that still seems to be in use

Before I did my source search, I was more alarmed by the fact that the sources in the article are a little old. But now that I have looked for something newer, I am a little less worried that they are out of date. Or, if they are, there isn't an obvious better source. I am pretty busy this week but may see if I can find some of these sources and start poking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Its a fair nom of an old FAR save and does need to be brought up to standard. The recent FAR driven overhaul of the closely related Imagism[2] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through some other poetry FAs and seen some have an own article on works or bibliography like Stephen Crane or Maya Angelou. Other FAs also have a selection of works included in the article on the author. I'd personally prefer an own article for her bibliography, but I am not so much into the subject. Or maybe her works could be presented more in detail as in some of the other FAs. What is your opinion on the matter Ceoil?

Óengus I

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

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

@Serial Number 54129: - I see you've added some sources here - any thoughts on this one? Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: per the last sentence of your nom, I'd also like to keep the article's status. It shouldn't be impossible; I've a few of the sources and others are available. It's really a matter of time—apart from weekends, I only have a couple of hours in the evenings for WP at the moment, so it could be a slow process. Particularly as I might have over-extended my supply lines, as it were, a bit  :) SN54129 18:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Take the time you need, just keep us posted on updates :) Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Chad

Notified: Aldux, Amcaja, Materialscientist, WikiProject Africa, Countries, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are major issues with datedness and citation issues, see the detailed list on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Well this has been due for awhile. I've done some updating and cleanup myself here and there, but don't have time for a more detailed undertaking. This article does reflect in a few ways the state of country articles in the early years of Wikipedia, and has not kept up with increasing standards since then. A shame though, as many areas remain quite good. CMD (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Enzyme inhibitor

Notified: TimVickers, Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, talk page notification 2020-12-13

This was noticed near the end of 2020, there is a bunch of problems with the articles. Unsourced sentences, the images are laid out messily, the writing needs a overhaul. There are a lot of issues with this article that I don't think will be fixed. GamerPro64 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I have reordered a few of the sections, corrected a few inaccuracies, improved the image layout, and have added a few citations. I will add more as I find time. Any additional problems? Boghog (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Definitely looks improved from the previous version. Gonna need another take from someone more seasoned with medical articles at least. GamerPro64 04:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Boghog: I am not a medical expert (maybe SandyGeorgia can suggest a couple of editors to take a look at this?) but I'll give some general thoughts below as a non-expert reviewer. I noticed that there's lots of paragraphs that either do not have citations or do not have one at the end. When I write historical bios, I typically require a citation at the end of the every paragraph, minimum, to verify the preceding information. I'm not sure how it is with MED articles, as there are formulas involved, so instead I will post some of these paragraphs without citations below:

• There's a couple of paragraphs that do not have citations that concern me. One place is the "Types" section (under "Reversible inhibitors"): uncompetitive inhibition has a citation at the end of its paragraph but the other do not. What is verifying the information in the other three paragraphs, and should there be a citation at the end of them?
• Under "Quantitative description" there are paragraphs between formulas that are not cited. I am confused about which sources are verifying this information. Is there a way that citations can be added to these paragraphs?
• The first paragraph in "Measuring" does not have citations. Is citation 33 verifying this information?
• The first paragraph in "Applications" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
• The second paragraph in "Antibiotics" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
• The first paragraph in "Pesticides" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?

I hope this gives a good start in things to consider. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Z1720 for your comments. I am gradually adding more citations to the sections that you mention. Under the Quantitative description section, the second half of the section was added after the the article was promoted to FA in this edit, is fairly technical, and the only support I could find was in a predatory source. Prehaps it would be best to delete this material altogether. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not have the subject-area expertise to comment on what should and should not be in the article, so I will defer to other's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is too much text uncited that should be cited, inappropriate use of bolding, and while I am not easily frightened by biomedical topics, I can get no sense from the lead of ... anything. The lead needs to be brought down a level, into plainer English, less jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiridates I of Armenia

Notified: Eupator, WikiProject Armenia, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Zoroastrianism, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rome, 18-12-2021

I am nominating this featured article for review because of disorganised references, with some media described in the inline citation and others placed in the bibliography section. There's also works placed in the bibliography that are not used as sources and their quality should be evaluated and considered for inline citation use. The "War with Rome" section has been expanded since its FAC and I think it should be trimmed and summarised. The "Visiting Rome" section has pretty much stayed the same since its FAC, but I also think it can be summarised and trimmed, especially Tiridates and Nero's interaction and the direct quotes. The "Cultural depictions" section is one sentence and uncited. Eponymous-Archon made some improvements after I noticed it in December, but these seemed to have stalled. HistoryofIran commented on the talk page that this article's FA status should be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - sourcing needs improved in areas. "Nero was reportedly so impressed by this act that he ordered a gladiatorial games be staged in honor of his guest" should have a secondary source rather than Cassius Dio, the large chunk of a paragraph sourced to the 1842 "Penny Cyclopedia" needs a better source, etc. There's some other areas where Cassius Dio or Tacitus should be replaced by secondary sources and while Smith 1867 is considered useful at times, I would recommend using more modern references instead of the cites to him, as where Smith is dated, it's frequently badly so. Hog Farm _Talk 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Macfarlane Burnet

Notified: Peta/PDH, YellowMonkey, WP History of Science, WP Bio, WP Australia, WP Med, WP Viruses, WP Physiology, talk page notification 2021-12-20

This 2006 has not been maintained to FA standards. The issues listed on talk on 2021-12-20 include datedness, comprehensiveness, an overreliance on non-independent sources, prose and MOS issues. The article appears to be unwatched, and needs a tune up to retain status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, nothing really happening since Sandy's improvements back in December. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Solar System

Notified: Nsae Comp, Ruslik0, ‎Kwamikagami, ‎JorisvS,‎ Rfassbind, ‎Ashill, ‎Double sharp, ‎Serendipodous, ‎WP Systems, ‎WP Astronomical objects, ‎WP Solar System, talk page notification 2022-02-22

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically, you are supposed to wait at least 2 weeks for someone to respond. This article is listed on WP:URFA/2020A (kept at FAR in 2009) but has not been examined yet. There is considerable unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Notifications have not been done either. It may be best to put this one on hold for a couple weeks to see if someone will work on it with an eye towards keeping the star. Hog Farm _Talk 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinadon36 actually began discussing the deficiencies on talk on 22 February, so we may as well let this one run even though Cinadon36 did not follow the instructions and has not done the notifications. Cinadon36, I added the talk page issues to the Notifications section above. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR so you can avoid making this mistake again. Also, after you read the instructions, please do the notifications as indicated, and record them above. You can see a sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mars/archive1. Also, we try to avoid overwhelming any one WikiProject with more than one FAR at a time, so with Mars already up, it is unlikely that anyone will work on Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry mates, I will try to notify users. I didnt do it immediately coz it seems everything is going so slowly in the specific article, and I thought I could do it later. This is my first FAR, and I wouldnt know how to notify, so, I thought I will think of it later. I 'll do it now and if I have any questions, I will ask someone of you at your talkpages maybe? Thanks and pls bare with me! Cinadon36 15:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Cinadon36; your notifications are looking good, the remaining step is to list them above, using the format at Mars. No harm done here, as it does not appear that the Astronomy WikiProject has the people power or the interest in keeping their articles at standard anymore; a very sad loss for Wikipedia, as we had most of the Solar System. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Cinadon36, I completed the notification listings for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm spread thin these days, but I took a first whack at addressing the issues raised on the Talk page, and I trimmed a little. My impression right now is that the uncited material can probably either be cited to standard textbooks (or possibly journal articles), or removed as WP:UNDUE. It's a fixer-upper, but not a trainwreck. XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @XOR'easter the article just needs some small fixes, the structure is excellent, so is most of the text. Cinadon36 08:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done some more work and remain optimistic. I moved the history-of-science section to the end of the article, which seems to be more in line with how Wikipedia typically does science articles: modern status first, history in the middle or later (compare the FA speed of light and the GA quantum mechanics, for example). I'll have to think more about if and how it needs revising. XOR'easter (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Update? @Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of the uncited text is "summarizes the linked article" kind of stuff or standard reference material, which looked easy to fix, so I was hoping somebody else would do it. I may have time later this week. I have no great sense for how many images is too many; for whatever reason, the arrangement of images on Wikipedia pages hardly ever strikes me as aesthetically pleasing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've done some more work here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Working on this and Mars simultaneously has gotten me a bit cross-eyed, but I think my wrangling so far has been pretty successful. XOR'easter (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been watching both, and impressed, but no time to respond yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That section has been bothering me, too. I ended up removing one of the wide images and the table. XOR'easter (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I went through and winnowed them. I think that widely-separated instances of technical terms are probably OK to link twice (a reader might encounter them in a later section without having seen their use in an earlier one), but there was definitely a lot that made for choppy reading. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and do not subscribe to the one-link-only philosophy, but some more winnowing could be done, particularly when a link is repeated within a level two heading. (There's an image placed at the bottom of a section, which is a MOS:ACCIM no no, but I don't know where to move it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you got it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that and thought about removing it, but he does appear to be a subject-matter specialist [3], so I set it aside for the moment to work on more pressing troubles. It can probably be removed as redundant with the JPL website that's currently footnote 1. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed now (though I wouldn't have a strong objection to adding it as an external link). XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been trying to make the references consistent as I go along, but I haven't yet had the will to do a top-to-bottom revision of the metadata formatting. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, just making sure you had noticed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they're all "last name, first name" now. XOR'easter (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Uncle Tom's Cabin

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

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

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

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

No edits, reinstated FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I had a personal issue which prevented me from finishing my work in a timely manner. That said, I've done a ton of research and will try to integrate that into the FAR process. My apologies for not getting this done when I said I would. --SouthernNights (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've now cleaned up and reworked the article per the issues originally raised (summarized here on the article's talk page). This included editing the entire article, updating and adding new sources, deleting original research, and much more. Let me know what people think. I'd originally done the research for all this back in December but then didn't have the time to make the edits. I'm sure there's more work needed on this article b/c it's so large and complex, so if people see something share it here. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Update: Although there has been a lot of improvement thanks to SouthernNights edits, there is still considerable uncited content that will need to get referenced or removed. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Also, @RetiredDuke: re original list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• The Publlications section has a lot of stubby paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I've inserted all of the requested citations in the article (or, if the unsourced statement couldn't be supported with a reliable citation, removed the statement). I've also gone through and re-edited the article to smooth out and clean up more of the prose.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Any other changes needed to keep the article at featured status? --SouthernNights (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issues still present:

• Citing 19th century sources such as "J. E. Dunn (August 31, 1896). "About Uncle Tom's Cabin: A Louisianian Says Meredith Calhoun Was Not a Model for Legree". The Washington Post." Not only do such sources not meet the high-quality sourcing requirement, a recent scholarly source could tell you what the current view is on various theories.
• There are other questionable sources cited such as BookRags.com
• Page numbers needed for some books cited
• The references section needs cleanup and a consistent citation style, but the substantive sourcing issues should be resolved first. (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed that dated citation and added citations to all the requested places. As for the references using a consistent citation style, is there a bot we can use for that, or is there someone with expertise in this area who can help?--SouthernNights (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There are still other 19th century sources cited:

• "Parton, James (October 1867). "International Copyright". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 6, 2009."
• "Old Uncle Tom". Weekly Arizona Miner (Prescott, Arizona). August 2, 1878. p. 1 – via Chronicling America.
• "Oberlin and a noted resident". Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, New York). January 12, 1885. p. 4 – via newspapers.com.
• Edwards, J. Passmore (1852). Uncle Tom's Companions: Or, A Supplement to Uncle Tom's Cabin: Being Startling Incidents in the Lives of Celebrated Fugitive Slaves. London: Edwards & Co. pp. 75–77.
• "From the Boston Traveler". The New York Times. Vol. XXXI, no. 9616. July 3, 1882. Retrieved October 19, 2020.

There is no bot that can fix the citation issues, all that one has to do is pick one citation format (I recommend {{sfn}}) and make sure the article consistently follows it. (t · c) buidhe 18:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can bring the article to a place where Buidhe is satisfied on the sourcing, and everyone else is satisfied with prose, I am willing to help standardize the format. I don't have time to undertake that work until/unless everything else here is squared away. Please ping me if/when we reach that point. My preferred style would be to move to sfns on books or for very long journal articles where page number citations are needed, and leaving everything else in ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for sharing this info and for your help on this. As an FYI, it'll be a few days before I can make a new round of citation updates b/c I'm swamped with other work. Once I get this new work completed I'll let everyone know.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Buidhe if other concerns are addressed, I can work on citations. SouthernNights are you OK with sfns on all book sources, but ref tags on everything else (that is, those that don't need short notes with page nos)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to say, although I don't see anything egregious in the current version, literature is not the main area I edit so I don't feel confident in asserting the content has no issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What I want to know at this point is, if I spend an entire day cleaning up citations, am I going to find that I was cleaning up an FA that was never going to be salvaged anyway. I recognize you can't definitively make a declaration at this point, but if anyone knows of any deficiencies in the article now that would prevent it being kept as an FA, I'd appreciate knowing that before I work on cleaning up citations, so my time is not misspent. (And SouthernNights, since you haven't responded, if you don't have a preferred citation style, shall I use my preference, which is easier for me?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't have a preferred citation style so I'll use whichever you prefer (meaning I'm okay with sfns on all book sources and ref tags on everything else). Buidhe, my work at Wikipedia has mainly focused on literary topics and I heavily researched the update to this article for the FAR. I feel very confident the article's content is solid and will hold up for years to come.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

List of citation issues

• In the Bibliography section, we need ISBNs for the version of the books that the page numbers are provided for.
• The page ranges on Lott are too broad for verification; SouthernNights, once I'm done (and you will see now how easy it is to locate the sfns for Lott and change the page numbers as needed, use p for one page and pp for a range) those need to be narrowed down.
• Wilson: is the text cited to the Frontcover, or is there a missing page number ?
• I am moving sources that are not used to Further reading: those will need to be checked and pruned.
• There are missing page numbers on books.
• You mentioned that Awadewit had helped on this article; her early work contained original research. Is this text verified by the source, or is a conclusion drawn by the writer? We need a page number to an independent source that makes this claim from this author: "The novels either implied or directly stated that African Americans were a childlike people[100] unable to live their lives without being directly overseen by white people.[page needed][101]"
• Some laxity in sources making this slow work: is Rosenthal the editor or the author? There was a missing "A" on the book title, but without an ISBN, I can't be sure what we're looking at.
  • From this, it appears that Rosenthal is Editor, and all of the Rosenthal sources should be citing a chapter. If so, I need the chapter info on each Rosenthal citation to write the sfns correctly. Marianne Noble, "The Ecstasies of Sentimental Wounding in Uncle Tom's Cabin," from Debra J. Rosenthal (ed.), A Routledge Literary Sourcebook on Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, Routledge, 2003, p. 58.
• The article says the Tompkins book is In Sensational Designs, but Worldcat says it is Sensational Designs ...
• Similar to Lott, the page ranges on Tompkins are too broad for verification and need to be individually adjusted.
• I am seeing a bigger problem ahead: none of the journal articles cited list page ranges, so without looking each one up, we don't know whether those page ranges are too large for verification. And, they aren't easily looked up, as they are also lacking DOIs or any sort of ID. Journal articles with broad page ranges need specific page numbers, as with books.
• Some of the Appiah Gates page nos are 44, and a bunch others are 544: please check that that is not a typo.
• There is a mixture of citation styles, so I have templated the lot to create consistency.
• There is a sourcing that needs scrutiny as to high quality for an FA; hard to tell what they are, consolidating list:
  • https://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/domestic.htm
  • I'm pretty sure that SparkNotes is not a high-quality source suitable for a Featured article; someone will need to doublecheck this.
  • Is The Complete Idiot's Guide to American Literature a high-quality source suitable for a Featured article? (I don't know, but I suspect not.)
  • https://news.virginia.edu/content/story-uncle-tom-s-cabin-spread-novel-theater-and-screen
  • https://www.c-span.org/classroom/document/?5045
  • http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/interpret/exhibits/winship/winship.html
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20080827202631/http://www.kuce.org/kt/session1/bg.html
  • http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/onstage/films/cameos/hollywood.html (and many more similar)
• "Stowe acknowledged in 1853 that Henson's writings inspired Uncle Tom's Cabin.[20][21]" The first citation does not fully verify the text ( "A last instance parallel with that of Uncle Tom is to be found in the published memoirs of the venerable Josiah Henson..." ... a parallel between is not the same as one having inspired the other), and the second is not freely accessible for verification, so I have added a request quote.

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

Eight hours, and I have not finished the citation cleanup; stopping for the night at the "Reactions to the novel" section, will finish another day. There are a number of obstacles for this article to retain status: the almost total absence of ISBNs, several places I had to place maintenance tags, and the article quality is variable, with patches of poor sourcing and prose that is not at FA standard, or both. It will take more than SouthernNights and my citation cleanup for this article to retain its star. Mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have finished converting all that I can do; the journals are only partially done, as specific page numbers are needed on many of them. SouthernNights, here are samples of how the journal citations need to be fixed, with the full page range listed as a source, but the specific page number supporting the text used as an sfn: Nichols, and Jones, only a two-page article, so page nos not needed.

From the list I left above, the ISBN work is the most daunting, and I can't help on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'll dig into the these issues this weekend and see what I can do. However, I may not be able to address all this over the weekend. As for the ISBNs, according to citing sources that is optional for books. Why are we trying to add all the ISBNs if they're optional and the books can be looked up with the info already provided?--SouthernNights (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is no hurry. On books that have more than one edition, we need to know which edition the page numbers are cited to, and that comes with an ISBN. It's kinda hard to verify content if you're using page numbers from the wrong edition of a book :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, SouthernNights, Nikkimaria may have a more generalized answer to the query about ISBNs; she is more up on that than I am. And, it's equally important that you break down some of the long page ranges to something manageable, that the reader can actually verify (on both books and long journal articles). Now that an sfn system is place, that should be easier to do, as you just have to change the page nos on the sfn p= or pp= parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  In addition to helping to determine editions, ISBNs also allow for more easy access to full text / locating print copies. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• As an FYI, I have major non-Wikipedia projects due, so I may not be able to get to theses item for a week or two (I was overly optimistic when I said I'd have time this weekend).--SouthernNights (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  SouthernNights any plan now for continuing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. I'm finishing up my non-Wikipedia work that's under deadline. I'll have time middle of next week to return to the article. I believe I can resolve the remaining issues in a day or two once I have the time to get into it.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

In terms of referencing, I'm fine with adjusting the style—since people do drive-by additions and rarely follow Harvard, I think it makes most sense to collapse the notes and refs into one section, use everything in ref tags w/ citation templates and if necessary use {{rp}} for specific pagination where necessary outside of the citation. I would think at least for the ease of improving things shoving current citations into a reflist in the references section would be best. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the Expedition 364 section that it just feels like recent information not properly contextualized and integrated into the article, so I've started trimming it down and moved it into the geology/morphology section where I think it makes more sense.

Working on migrating refs and tagging some that don't appear to be used currently in the process for evaluation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I've migrated sources from the bibliography to the references section, so everything now uses {{reflist}}; some ref formatting for missing fields/differences in formatting still needs to be done. There remains a number of phantom sources left over in the bibliography; some can probably safely be jettisoned but I will need to go through them to double-check. Once that's done I will get back to prose cleanup; seems like editors were busy adding in facts that were redundant to other parts of the article, so a lot in the "mass extinction" section can be cut or recontextualized. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, I've substantially revised and slimmed down the extinction section, and tried to reduce redundancies with other sections throughout. While there's still work to do in terms of formatting refs, copyediting, and pulling a few more refs to source stuff I don't think was adequately or clearly referenced previously/cleanup tags, wanted to check in. I think the article is better weighted towards more recent sources and incorporating them better into the flow of the article. Thoughts? Additionally User:Wretchskull if you had any thoughts would be good to get more than one opinion here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The article looks great now, but I have a few comments:

• Per MOS:SEEALSO, links given in the body should not be mentioned in see also. Remove Iridium anomaly. List of impact craters on Earth is already linked, but because it isn't displayed verbatim, and because I'm certain readers would click such a link, I'll let you keep it if you want to.
• If you could remove the three refs in the lede and incorporate them in the body that would be great.
• There are still two citation needed tags. Have you searched anything on internet archive, google books, google scholar, the Wikilibrary, etc.?
• Ref 69 uses the deprecated parameter "|lay-url=".
• Perhaps link "million years ago"?

Thank you for your work! Wretchskull (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there has been a signficiant improvement. Another issue I have is that we are continuing to use newspaper articles such as the BBC for the effects of the impact, when these really should be sourced to journal articles, see cf. WP:MEDPOP. In particular there appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC sourcing, where in the BBC article it says gypsum was injected into the atmosphere, but recent journal sources say the evaporite component was almost entirely anhydrite (which is effectively an anhydrous form of gypsum), maybe that is just semantic though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wretchskull I believe I've addressed your concerns except for the lay-url thing (there's some disagreement on whether it's gonna' stay deprecated so I'll leave it for now.) Hemiauchenia, I'm fine with using the the journals to double-verify what's in the news articles (the specific example you pull I think is a distinction without a difference for our purposes, but c'est la vie), but the main issues with relying on them solely (besides starting to get into the weeds of minor stuff that I don't think a general wikipedia article should bother with, see the aforementioned 'is gypsum 100% technically the right word') is that they're really not set up for giving useful soundbites to quote versus specific facts and figures. The books and longform journalism articles in the article right now are much better at giving a broad overview, so I'd be reticent to cut them.

On that subject, the article currently is structured with explaining how Penfield &c. discovered the impact crater, its description, effects, and then talking more about the extinction theory. I'm wondering if that's a weird way of structuring it? Versus starting with the Alvarez hypothesis in 1979/80, discussing the search for the crater generally (Alvarez's book gives some useful info there that's not included at present) and then going to what is currently the opening of the article. Perhaps that level of context makes more sense for the overall structure of the article and the narrative? It also then allows us to more directly talk about the effects and why that was obviously a disaster for life/cause of the K-Pg extinction in the effects section itself, versus a final section partially restating some of the details from before. Since you felt that the section was sort of weird to begin with Hemiauchenia maybe this gets around the problem entirely? (On the other hand, I do kind of like ending it with the declarative bits about why the crater is so important, but I think a lot of that stuff about being accepted by the scientific community would still end up at the end of the article regardless.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and adjusted it. The final paragraph feels slightly out of place but it fits much better with everything else I think it's an overall improvement. Also expanded the discovery section a bit in the process. As for the newspaper/news sourcing, I can be double-checked but I think most have a corresponding journal citation to verify their more technical claims. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Excellent work! By the way, this edit seems rather contentious, as it substantially alters a significant figure about the speed of the impactor; I can't fault the latter source added, though. Also, "perhaps" (in the same clause) feels a little unencyclopedic, and I would probably replace it with "approximately/about/circa/most likely" or anything else. Wretchskull (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - The section "Geology and geomorphology" seems to combine the two topics, without doing a particularly good job on either. There's also quite a bit of geological information in the preceding "Impact specifics" section, so a reorganisation may be in order. Another issue is that there are a number of statements in both sections that seem to be based on a misreading of the cited sources e.g. "Vaporized rock, including sulfur-rich gypsum from the shallow coastal waters, was injected into the atmosphere.", whereas the importance of the shallow water is that most of the impactor's energy was spent in melting and deforming rock rather than displacing water, which would have been the case in much deeper water, allowing the anhydrite-bearing Lower Cretaceous rocks towards the base of the 3 km sequence of Mesozoic sedimentary rocks to be vaporized. Again, in the same paragraph, "... determined that the impactor landed in deeper water than previously assumed, which may have resulted in increased sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere.", which also seems to be suggesting that the sulfur is coming from the water somehow, whereas in this case, it's the increased water vapor reacting with the vaporized anhydrite that would have caused more of the aerosols to form, according to the cited source. The explanation of the formation of cenotes (2nd para Geology and morphology section) due to there being a "water basin" is less than clear, nor why the groundwater created all those caves and cenotes where they did - Hildebrand et al. 1995 link them to slump faults along the crater rim. Much is made of the "pink granite" in the 4th para., although its colour doesn't seem very important. Undoubtedly the granite has moved upwards due to the impact, from a deeper level, although how deep is unclear - it's just part of the underlying basement. The section lacks a clear description of the impactites that the various boreholes have encountered or how they are thought to be distributed around the crater. There's no mention of suevite in the article, although it's ubiquitous in the cited sources. The final sentence states that "The post-impact tsunamis were sufficient to lay down the largest known layered bed of sand, around 100 m deep and separated by grain size, directly above the peak ring." That's not what the cited source says, it states "in the hours that followed (the impact) ocean tsunamis dumped huge amounts of sandy sediment in the giant hole in Earth.", mentioning no thickness, no claim to be the largest known and saying that they were deposited in the crater not on the peak ring. Mikenorton (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I've made a start on reorganising by adding a "Morphology" section. Mikenorton (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Cross-section now added. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Mikenorton are you done with the substantial content changes? I'm back with access to my databases so I want to go through and spot-check stuff now that the content has shifted but don't want o go down that road if things are still substantially changing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been attempting to rewrite the "Geology" section but it's slow going - see here. Sorry to be so slow at this. I think that we also need a section on "Investigations" to understand the data that's been used, particularly the seismic reflection data that's been acquired and the boreholes that have been drilled since the identification of the crater. Mikenorton (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My initial thought is that's getting way too into the weeds here for a general overview of the crater? Stuff about individual boreholes and the like feels like it's dumping jargon no one outside of geology students or scientists are going to know or care about. Beyond that the geology starts getting into the weeds of the area rather than the crater, which I think is out of scope for this article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The crater is a geological feature - putting more detail in about the geology hardly seems excessive to me. Where else would we put such material? Well, I've gone ahead and replaced the existing geology section and I'm now working on a a relatively short summary of the post-discovery investigations - we wouldn't even know for sure that it was a multi-ring structure if it wasn't for the seismic reflection data that's been acquired over it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - While working on the article I noticed that the gravity image (File:Chicxulub-Anomaly.jpg) appears to have an erroneous license as it claims that "it only contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey". Links to the original image state in contrast that "This image was constructed from gravity measurements taken by Petróleos Méxicanos beginning in 1948 in the course of petroleum exploration augmented by recent work of researchers from the Geological Survey of Canada, Athabasca University, the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, and the Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán." Regretfully, I think that I should start a deletion process on commons, as I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't be using it. Mikenorton (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Update: Mikenorton is continuing to work on the article, with a huge edit to the Geology section on March 22 and others making smaller improvements. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've finished what I had intended to do, although I suspect that there's some duplication in there still. Mikenorton (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Green children of Woolpit

Notified: Drmies, talk page notification 2020-04-15

Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Q28 and/or buidhe, please also notify other major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe when you have to complete the nominations for another editor, you can add their name so it doesn't look your nomination thusly: {{subst:FARMessage|Green children of Woolpit|Q28}}. All parties have not yet been notified. ~~~~

Drmies is listed above as notified, but I see no notification on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved, but I've been notified. Panini!^🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have some concers re close paraphrasing and over-reliance on certain sources. I gather from the FAC that no spotchecks were done, which I find a bit bewildering. Anyway, let's have a look:

• Article: In a modern development of the tale the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die; in this version the children's green colouration is explained by their having been poisoned with arsenic. Fleeing from the wood in which they were abandoned, possibly nearby Thetford Forest, the children fell into the pits at Woolpit where they were discovered.

• Source: In what seems to have been a recent development of the story […] the children are identified with the familiar "Babes in the Wood" […] According to this version, their green coloration was due to arsenic administered by their wicked uncle; fleeing from the wood where they were abandoned (perhaps nearby Thetford Forest), they stumbled into the pits at Woolpit

• Article: The second is that it is a garbled account of a real event

• Source: Others accept it as a garbled account of an actual occurrence

• Article: Ralph's account in his Chronicum Anglicanum, written some time during the 1220s, incorporates information from Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, who reportedly gave the green children refuge in his manor, six miles (9.7 km) to the north of Woolpit.

• Source: Ralph of Coggeshall's version, in his Chronicon Anglicanum (English Chronicle), was not finally written down until the 1220s; but it incorporated information from a certain Richard de Calne of Wykes, who had reportedly given the Green Children refuge in his manor.

I also think it's kinda weird that no pages are cited for journal articles (which can have rather long page ranges, like Clark 2006, Lawton 1931, Lunan 1996, Orne 1995, Walsh 2000, etc.). --Q28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Q28, not citing pages is not "weird"--it's pretty common practice, certainly for those who use only the regular citation templates and cite articles in notes and books in bibliographies. It would be nice if the "cite journal" template had a parameters for the pages of the article and the actual citation. To appease I made some tweaks to get the paraphrase further from the original. But that "no spotchecks were done"? It is more likely that the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence: the reviews were done by seasoned editors. AGF please. And remember that "close" in "close paraphrase" is a matter of opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• So, Q28, this wasn't you, this "I"--it was User:Eisfbnore, who tagged me on the talk page over a year ago. I don't remember if I saw this; if I did, I must not have thought it of great concern. It's funny that you would pretend here to complain about close paraphrasing when of course the entire text is copied verbally from someone else; perhaps Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is of use here. But beyond this particular case (Eisfbnore, please see my edits to the article), I have some questions about competence, given for instance this edit and the reply to this edit by User:SandyGeorgia--thank you, Sandy, for pinging me. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies I don't believe Eisfbnore will see your ping; they have had two different accounts since then. See here and followup at their user talk and Iri's talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, Drmies I've gained some experience with the {{Copied}} template because of the CCI on WikiProject Cyclone, so if you'll let me know where the copying within came from, I'll make those additions to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • You know what, SandyGeorgia, a little bell is starting to ring, and I'm wondering if that backstory doesn't have something to do with it on my end--that I saw the ping, saw where it came from, and ignored it--that's a thing I can see myself do. Anyway, their edit was this; they never returned to the matter, and they certainly didn't more formally notify me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • If we can address the copying within, this FAR can probably be closed. Please let me know from whence it came, and I will do the proper edits to reflect it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • SandyGeorgia, it's in my previous response. This is what Eisfbenore posted, and Q28 just copied it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

          I misunderstood; I thought you were saying that Copying within was responsible for the close paraphrasing, and that the text came from another article. Sorry for the distraction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'll put things more nicely; Q28, beginning FAR reviews based on other opinions is fine (like how multiple users will bicker about an article and someone else unrelated will join the discussion and WP:AFD it), but since this is direct pulling proper credit needs to be given. If you didn't know about this, that's perfectly fine, and I apologize for our stink-eyes. If you acknowledge and apologize, we can move on (and actually fix the article while we're at it). Panini!^🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Refs, I don't know about all this above^^^ but I made a start on one of the citations to provide page numbers (as someone pointed out above, to avoid overly broad page ranges per V). As my editsum makes clear, I have indulged mightily in citebanditry as I know no other way. Although it's worth noting that the article already uses {{sfn}} for some sources anyway, so I fail to see why others have to be in a list of stuff. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can see, the sources with the page ranges are Lawton 1931, Briggs 1970, 2X Clark 2006, Lunan 1996 and Harder 1973, all of wot I got. SN54129 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone still has to address the close paraphrasing/copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above  :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

• Close without FARC, I'm not seeing any other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• There are possible comprehensiveness issues though, the article does not mention J. H. Prynne's The Land of Saint Martin which is apparently based on the green children story? Or other works? We mention The Man on the Moone but not the role the green children played in that work? This was just based on a quick Google Scholar search. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ealdgyth and Drmies: if one of you could address Buidhe's comprehensiveness concern, we might get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
    • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the alert. I'll get on it, but I don't have access to any of those articles. Plus, I have to say, that what appears to be a rather obscure three-page poem doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned here, by analogy with WP:COVERSONG. And who is J. Anderson Coats? I see it--but again, how important is this? When I get access to those reviews, I'll give them a sentence. The bigger thing, about Godwin, I'll have a look at the article and see if there is material that should be included. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • SandyGeorgia, I'm looking at these citations. I see that User:Serial Number 54129 was wondering about them, and has started to move some references to another system. I think, if I'm looking correctly, that has led to some inconsistencies with punctuation. I suppose, then, I need to do all of them with that "sfn" template. Originally, we had books in the bibliography and articles in the notes, which I believe was Malleus's system. I'm also adding page numbers when I can. Sandy, this is a useful thing I'm doing, right? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

      I'm in favor of moving to sfns; don't worry about punctuation inconsistency-- that is the kind of manual work I am happy to clean up for you, more important is that those who have the sources get the content work done and page nos provided. Ping me when you are ready, and I will do any work needed for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Drmies, Ealdgyth, and Serial Number 54129: I have standardized the citation format. Could someone specify explicitly what is missing? If I must, I will get the sources myself; it's time to get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry—got distracted—can get involved with sources tomorrow morning UTC—apologies also to Drmies for ignoring you—and apologies for fecking up your references. SN54129 20:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was just me, being unnecessarily grouchy. If I can't wake up to find Putin gone, at least I can hope for some FARs to move along! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC; no edits since mine on 4 March, at my wit's end for how to get this one moving. FARC does not preclude further work happening, but need to keep this moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC unless someone is willing to address buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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)
  • This article is being worked on, albeit slowly. It will take me another 45 days to restore it as many of the ref URLs are dead so have to go through them individually.--MONGO (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    I see MONGO has started in here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

It is perfectly acceptable to use the subject's autobiography and there is no need to replace it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think better phrasing of my thoughts above are that if there is a high-quality secondary source that verifies similar information, it should replace an inline citation to Kraft's biography. If Kraft is the only source that can be used for the information, then it should not be replaced. I am concerned that 38 of 88 inline citations in the article are to Kraft's autobiography, including some opinionated statements like, "Not much happened in Gemini or Apollo that didn't either originate with us or with our input." (which is according to Kraft) and "Both astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions," (which could be rephrased to "he thought that the astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions"). I searched Kraft's name in WP:LIBRARY and found lots of sources about Kraft, particularly sources written around the time of his death in 2019. There are also articles on the Apollo missions that are FAs that might contain high-quality sources that mention Kraft. The concerns primary sources do not negate that there are uncited statements and short paragraphs throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Quite so. I'll have a look at the article and add required references and fix up the short paragraphs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I have done a pass through the article and removed bare URLs, added citations for everything is cited, tidied up the references, consolidated short paragraphs, and added some additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: - Would you be able to give this a re-review and see what you think about the state of the article now? Hog Farm _Talk 14:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 mentioned elsewhere that real life is keeping them off of Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I will try to give this a review at some point over the next few days, then. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

HF

• "He also discovered that wingtip vortices, and not prop-wash, are responsible for most of the wake turbulence in the air that trails flying aircraft. This finding was forgotten and later rediscovered independently" - it may be best for independent sourcing on this

  Added an independent source, and the original paper, which is still available from multiple sources, and still frequently cited. I doubt his assertion that it was forgotten; it has been cited in many aircrash investigations, the earliest one I found being in 1957, and the so-called "rediscovery" cites it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "A pivotal experience for Kraft was the flight of Mercury-Atlas 5," - source is the Time piece itself; needs a better source for this part

  Re-sourced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and responsibility for some of the others is still being debated" - need a better source than Carpenter's letter

  Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• "but under the circumstances there was little he could do" - a non-Kraft source for this?

  Re-wrote this to make it clearer that Kraft was in Houston.

• "Called into Mission Control by Gene Kranz almost immediately after the accident" - sentence fragment

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 - Any thoughts? I'm comfortable with most of what is being sourced to Kraft, but I think there are definitely a few places where a non-Kraft source would be best. Hog Farm _Talk 06:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: - Thank you! I'd say I'm probably comfortable with this one being kept if you are. Hog Farm _Talk 21:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not ready to let this one through yet (1a and 1d concerns). I had to make too many prose adjustments,[4] and since my prose is not stellar, that means we need a real prose guru to go through. I'm also not convinced we have given due attention to the Kraft Report or worked in scholarly research. The original nominator has not edited the article since 2007, while journal publications about the effect of the Kraft Report on subsequent disasters continued, and without incorporating that, the article isn't neutral. Our content on the Kraft Report is unchanged from the version that passed FAC in 2007, so a fresh look at the newer scholarly sources might be in order. We should discuss whether all the praise in the lead is balanced by whatever ends up at Christopher C. Kraft Jr.#Consultant about the Kraft Report. It seems like significant controversy. At minimum, we can mention the "controversial" Kraft Report in the lead. Hopefully by the time someone addresses that, Z1720 will be back and can look at the prose; I found a lot of redundancy on only a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 this sentence isn't working: "The panel's controversial report, known as the Kraft report, recommended that NASA's Space Shuttle operations should be outsourced to a private contractor, and that NASA cut back on the organizational changes intended to improve that were made after the Space Shuttle Challenger accident." Can it be split in two after private contractor, and I can't tell what the second part is aiming for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Split it and reworked it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

From Organizational Learning at NASA : The Challenger and Columbia Accidents:

McAfee (2006) especially champions joint-authoring tools such as blogs and wikis because "the intranet platform shifts from being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated interlinked work of many". He cites the experience of Wikipedia to suggest that such forums can offer highly reliable information.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is much better now (can't figure out why McAfee 2006 is quoted above though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Z1720

I am returning to semi-active editing, so I'm giving this article another look-through. Overall, I think this article is very close to a keep. I made some edits; please review them to ensure that they are appropriate for the article. The images need alt text per MOS:ALT. The infobox mentions the ASME medal and the Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, but these are not cited in the article body. Likewise, I think there are some awards in the awards section that could go in the infobox. Once these concerns are addressed I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added those awards to the body. MOS:ALT conformance is not required at FAC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ALT is an explanatory supplement to a guideline. The specific guideline that requires this is MOS:ACCIM #1. The featured article criteria #2 says featured articles should follow style guidelines, wikilinking to the manual of style, of which MOS:ACCESS (and the ACCIM subsection) are part of. This is also something that has been required of FACs for a while, so I assume that it is required for all featured articles. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Alt text has never been required of FACs. Nor has strict MOS conformance. Only those parts of the MOS specifically mentioned are required. MOS:ALT is only an explanatory supplement. It is not part of MOS:ACCESS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Alt-text and accessibility are part of MOS, and all of MOS is part of the criteria. There was a long period when alt text was most certainly enforced at FAC, but that was when we had multiple editors (no longer with us) who were very well versed in how to write alt text and willing to do it for those of us who weren't. WP:WIAFA clearly states, as it always has, that articles must comply with WP:MOS (not just some parts of MOS, although it highlights three parts with the words including). And alt text is mentioned twice at MOS.

But no part of MOS has ever been strictly enforced at FAC, and alt-text enforcement has fallen out of favor simply because ... most of us don't know how to write alt text correctly, and there are few editors who can do it. While it may not be a reason to hold up a FAC or FAR, it is surely something we can do out of thoughtfulness for readers who need it. Worse than the lack of alt text is the way almost NONE of the maps in ANY articles at FAC or FAR comply with MOS:COLOR (note the new images we added during the Great Fire of London FAR to bring it in to compliance) ... we can only ask and hope that editors will be considerate of visually impaired readers, although enforcement of this part of MOS at both FAC and FAR is spotty. Certainly, articles are passing both FAC and FAR today with maps in breach of MOS:COLOR, as an example. Alt text falls into the same category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I won't fail to support an article's featured status only on alt text, but if some kind soul, who appreciates all the work some of our editors who use screenreaders do in here, should add alt text, it would be most appreciated. If I knew how to write alt text, I'd do it myself; I would never present an article at FAC without alt text. Meanwhile, the prose is still spotty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It's an art form. I have added ALT text. The worst part of MOS:ACCESS in my opinion is the requirements it imposes on tables. Instead of adjusting the table table template, it imposes complex CSS markup requirements that most editors cannot perform. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's no fun to try to comply with ACCESS, and am so happy when someone else does it for me! But I hold the work up in appreciation for all that Graham87 (who uses a screenreader) does in here, and try to do what I can (which may not be much!). Thanks for doing that, Hawkeye7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil

Watching from a prose pov, its doable; repetitive and tacked on here and there but now (from the work above) not fatal. Have made trivial edits, and can give another run through tomorrow night. Am leaning keep. Ceoil (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ps, obv using autobiographies as sources (per discussion above) should be avoided like the plague. Ceoil (talk) 05:00, 26 March 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)

Next—remaining repetitions in the text, and redundant words. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Femkemilene, looking at the structure of the article, the History section mentions terms introduced in the Geography section further down (Antarctic Circle, Transantarctic Mountains, Mount Erebus, Ross Island). What do you think about swapping the two sections around, as is the case with North America and South America? Imo it would make sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it could work if 'history of exploration' is moved all the way before population. In that way, we have a nice switch between non-human and human.

A unrelated change of structure could be to put 'economy' and 'research' together under a 'human activity' header. That way, we'll get rid of the weird level-2 header of astrophysics. Femke (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice idea, I'm going to be bold and go ahead. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Femkemilene: Text now moved and titles amended, please add subsection titles if you think these are needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Next—replacing any unreliable sources, adding citations where needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Nearly sorted. AM

Next—tweaking the Bibliography/References sections to ensure the formatting is done consistently. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Prompted by this talkpage post, I had a look at the article and believe it to be deficient in its coverage of the non-mainland areas of Antarctica. Coverage in the geography section is limited to a See also and a brief mention of Ross Island/Mount Erebus, and there is a single mention in Climate of Signy Island. I would not expect a huge amount of space to be devoted to them, but the Geography section should at least be clear that (as with other landmasses discussed as continents) islands are often considered part of the topic in question, and perhaps go into where those islands are (eg. a note on those above and below the 60th parallel). Islands are covered in the Biodiversity, History of Exploration, Population, and Politics, but this comes without a general coverage of the topic at an earlier point. CMD (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Amitchell125, are you still working on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Yes, I've been working on other articles, but am now back into this one. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Sorry I don't understand what you are asking me to do here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hold, work underway Thanks everyone for all your endeavours so far and glad you are still improving this very important article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Unless anyone has any serious objections I think Close without FARC Chidgk1 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  Chidgk1 see my notes; have you read through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Not there yet; a complete read-through is needed. Just glancing in quickly I found basic issues: [5] Please have a look at prose, wikilinking, and paragraph structure. "In the mid-1970s, a coalition of international environmental protection organisations launched a public campaign to pressure governments to prevent mining in Antarctica." And ??? A one-sentence paragraph left hanging. "Overland sightseeing flights operated out of Australia and New Zealand until the Mount Erebus disaster in 1979, which killed all 257 people aboard." Aboard what? I have to click out to find out what Mount Erebus disaster refers to. There is a maintenance tag in the Ice sheet loss section. Prose is not at FA level throughout (although some sections are OK), and attention to flow and paragraph structure is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The first child born in the southern polar region was a Norwegian girl, Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, born in Grytviken on 8 October 1913.[note 7] Why a note and not a citation?
• Emilio Marcos Palma was the first person born south of the 60th parallel south, the first born on the Antarctic mainland, and the only living human to be the first born on any continent.[179] This is a 1986 source; no as of, no idea if this person is still "the only living human". (I see there was more detail in the pre-FAR version.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Femkemilene are you able to dig in here? The writing needs a top-to-bottom review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat are you able to help with any of the remaining issues I mentioned above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to bring this one over the line; unless someone can, it should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have the necessary prose skills to rewrite the article's prose to be FA quality, though I can fix some of the more basic problems. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know the Guild of Copyeditors have never been through it - should I ask them to have a go at the prose? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe wait to see first what Femke says? Sometimes with GOCE, you get someone not accustomed to FA-level work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I hope to have some energy this weekend for this. Femke (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've slowed down to a stop on this one. Other articles and real life have taken over. Best, Amitchell125 (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, Femke, I will hold off, but unless someone is able to bring this over the line (which means a solid copyedit top-to-bottom), we may need a move to FARC. Please let us know, since Amitchell125 seems busy and no one else has stepped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't want to squander Femkes talents on a mere copyedit so have asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Antarctica Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry my prose and knowledge of the topic aren't good enough to take on this article; take care to keep an eye on GOCE edits, depending on who shows up, as not all of them improve the prose without affecting source-to-text integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Sandy here. While the GOCE does good work, a specialist really needs to work on ones like these, or you run the risk of introducing unintentional errors or breaking source-text integrity. Fixing prose isn't something that can be simply fixed by a copyedit a lot of the time. Sourcing and prose need to go hand-in-hand, and if you try to work on prose without being super familiar with the sourcing, it can introduce issues if you're not familiar with the material. Hog Farm _Talk 14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Another argument to skip GOCE this time is that they have a large backlog. We don't want to hold up the process for two months. Anyway, with my long COVID, I'm trying to avoid doing more difficult things on Wikipedia, so a copy-edit is just about perfect. Femke (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK I'll leave it in the queue for now just in case as you are right they won't pick it up for a while, and you can cancel it (or ask me to) if/whenever you think is the right time to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Going into more detail here. Fixed the [note 7] thingie. I'll try to address some of these later, but don't count on me

• The lede is a bit short. It does not mention climate change, the ozone hole, tourism
• The 200 mm does not seem repeated in the body / is uncited
• The -63 degrees seems not repeated in body
• The United States Exploring Expedition is only mentioned in the lede
• In 2004, a potentially active underwater volcano was found in the Antarctic Peninsula by American and Canadian researchers -> do we know more?
• temperatures there can reach -90 -> this seems to contradict the fact that -89.2 is the lowest temperature measured. Might be true, as satellite measurements don't count for records.. Will need to check source quality

(reviewed up to Climate). Femke (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Failed verification for precipitation amounts
• First two sentence of second paragraph lack adequate sourcing
• The sentence "there is some evidence ..." is cited to a 2008 source, which is too old for such a statement. I've spent some time finding a newer source, but no success.
• The paragraph of ice shelf collapse is too much focussed on the 2000-2010 decade; also, we have another paragraph about ice shelves later on
• The loss of mass from Antarctica's ice sheet is partially offset by additional snow falling back onto the continent -> Weird start of sentence. What loss?
• East Antarctica, which occupies most of the continent, is dominated by accumulated snow moves flows the sea as ice. -> clarification needed
• The ozone hole section doesn't explain why ozone depletion was highest over Antarctica (I think it's some katalytic reaction on atmospheric ice crystals that only form there??)

(reviewed up to biodiversity) Femke (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• The first sentence of biodiversity is attributed to a person, not a great start. Study from 2014. Now accepted wisdom?
• The snow petrel is one of only three birds that breed exclusively in Antarctica -> I think this source only supports the statement that the snow petrel breeds in Antarctica
• Plant growth is restricted to a few weeks in the summer -> failed verification
• no citation for statement about algae

(reviewed up to History of exploration) Femke (talk) 19:49, 2 April 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)

Aza24 are you still thinking this is doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes! The library sent me the book I needed today, so I will take a crack at it this weekend and report back. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

There were some edits yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry for such a delay. Unfortunately this week I have some other WP stuff higher on my plate but after that (by next weekend) this will be at the top of my list. I have all the sources necessary and have been reading through them for some time now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: Aza24 has been editing the article this week, and edited the article yesterday. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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.[6] Nutez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Additionally, I do not think that all of the sources here are high-quality.
  • I don't see why a PRNewswire press release should be used for anything related to this subject. There are guaranteed to be much better sources than that for basically any aspect of this event
  • " "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ABC News Live Coverage". YouTube" - no evidence that WP:COPYLINK is met here
  • WP:RSP lists Democracy Now! as a bit of a marginal source, there should be better sourcing available for an FA on this topic
  • " Pruszynski recording & analysis by acoustic expert Philip Van Praag Archived " - published by rfkmustdie.blip.tv, any reason why this is high-quality RS?
  • "Levin, Robert E. (1992). Bill Clinton: The Inside Story. S.P.I. Books. p. 60. ISBN 978-1561711772." - anyone familiar with this author/publisher? If this is the right linkedin page for the publisher, then the publisher apparently has single-digit employees

There's also a goodly number of reference formatting problems, with one source being simply "California State Archives" and a number using "Archived copy" as the title. Hog Farm _Talk 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I can maybe try to improve the article, give me a day or two to begin assessing it/finding better sources/formatting references/fixing other issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Anyone have thoughts on whether the caption "Robert Kennedy campaigns in Los Angeles, 1968 (photo by Evan Freed)" ought to have the parenthetical italicized? I'm always confused by {{xref}} and similar. (please use {{reply to|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, the article is salvageable! After taking a look, I think it can be saved. This a very important topic, and there are many sources which can be used. I did some minor copy-editing, and am in the process of re-arranging sources (separating books/journals/scholarly works from contemporary news sources). The main issues here is with the sourcing, there are few paragraphs poorly sourced/not sourced. Various YouTube citations and news articles can be replaced by more reliable works. I'll work on the article and will try to improve it to FA status by December 31. @Nutez, do let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Update – January 2, 2022: I have re-organised and more importantly, expanded the "Background" section, using WP:HQRS. Broadly, these were my edits, (which includes edits by few other users as well, to whom, I am grateful!) Willing to work rest of the article, if it can be held in FAR till then. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria : I am trying to get this to present FA status. I found this June 17, 1968 issue of Newsweek magazine. It has many images which may be useful for the article. It was published between 1926/77, and I don't see any indication of copyright on the magazine issue. Would {{PD-US-no notice}} apply? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of those images are credited to other sources - you would need to track those down in order to determine status. Some have a copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Kavyansh last edited the article on 2 Feb. The article has improved considerably but I still see referencing issues, at a glance #59, 77, and 104 in this version of the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Yeah, I am still interested in fixing the article. I'd say more than half work is done. I'll appreciate if you could hold it in FAR for few more days. I tried to add scholarly sources, and will replace the sources mentioned by Buidhe with better ones. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Kavyansh.Singh: How are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  Pretty well, but bit slow. This is now on my top priority list ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: Kavyansh.Singh made significant edits to the article on March 15. Is work continuing? Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Following on this and this, a thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check will be needed if this article heads towards Keep territory, in addition to a rigorous copyedit. That said, I don't see it heading for Keep territory. Here is the Background in the version that passed FAC; the current version is bloated, veering off-topic, and over-quoting. The prose is not at FA level: sample "In 1964, polls showed that various Democrats wanted Kennedy to be Johnson's running mate in the presidential election." Similar bloat and prose issues are found in the next section. Overquoting here, and this is not FA-level prose. Unless more editors plan to step in here to do address the original FAR concerns without bloat and marginal prose, I think we should be in Move to FARC territory, to keep this on target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:

• The sources used in the article with associated page numbers are mostly from the FA version a decade ago (promoted by you). I don't know how the two FACs you link are important here to demand a "thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check". I have no objections at all with the check being conducted, but what significance does that example of FACs of 2021/22 have on a 2008 promoted article?
• As for the prose, I very much appreciated anyone copyediting the prose. But for the off-topic background section, I disagree. That section now is not off-topic. Everything in the first sub-section is important:

Visit to Palestine - important as Sirhan Sirhan was from Palestine and that visit made impact on Kennedy's views on Israel (later mentioned in the article)

JFK's election and RFK as Attorney general, cuban missile crisis - important as to specify what led to RFK becoming, from President's brother to national leader and an influential figure which ultimately led to his presidential campaign.

JFK assassination - important to mention as to specify, so called, "Kennedy curse"

Johnson and RFK senatorial campaign - important as (1) to specify RFK's relations with LBJ (2) Kennedy mentioned his views on Israel in a speech in senatorial campaign.

Vietnam War - important to specify why a Democrat would run against a Democrat president in primaries.

• As for the second sub section, it specifies events that lead to RFK becoming the front runner and ultimately being assassinated. Please let me know what else is "veering off-topic", because in few political articles as this, background is very important. Suggesting to see Cross of Gold speech#Background.
• I will still work on the article, but if others feel my work (from this version to this version) is not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, feel free to move this to FARC.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources.

On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today.

All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No apology is needed; of course I have some bad promotions (no comment whether this one is, as I haven't even looked closely enough to say). On the issue of whether there is too much background, removing text is easier than adding text, so I'll hold off on that until sourcing and prose is examined. Since you seem aware of the work still needed here, I will debold my declaration to move to FARC, and check in later. But when serious copyediting is needed, I'm not the best person to do that work; I am always willing to do some copyediting, but I recognize my own prose limitations. Perhaps when Z1720 is back up to speed, they will look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Back to the article, I'll appreciate feedback on the following issues:

• The FA promoted version of the article was very concise (around 16,500 characters). Since then, lot has been added about "Assassin's gun" which I feel is not much useful. Who brought the gun, who did he sell it, how did it reach Sirhan, what was the cost, who "paid the $6 balance" has nothing much to do with the assassination. I could just remove much of that section, but would that be seen as compromising with comprehensiveness?

• I don't feel File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg in any ways contribute to the article. It is a non-free media (again, added after the 2008 promotion). Would that be fine to just remove it.

• I need feedback on sources. For FAs, we need "high quality reliable sources". In my previous FACs, I have been told that contemporary reliable news reports are fine to use as long as they are not used to support any evaluative claim. Because the initial FA version uses few issues of Time magazine's 1968 articles, almost all used to support the events of the assassination. I don't think that would be an issue, but just to be sure, could anyone more experienced take a look at sources in the Works cited section (only), few cleanup is still needed in the "References"

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My feedback:

1. The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.

   Checking further, the entire section was added by one editor, and the "who Wrote That" tool indicates it has been relatively untouched in the three years since (including the whopping 11-sentence quote). In other words, no FA-level eyes were watching this article. The upshot seems to be to debunk conspiracy theories; that can be done without the blow-by-blow detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

2. I am indifferent on that one; someone may find it relevant.
3. On those contemporary sources, I believe they are typically OK unless (and this is the key) more recent scholarly sources cover the material better or differently. This is where knowledge of all sources comes in to play (survey of the relevant literature). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

   Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

   Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at archive.org ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

   Few are available at Google books and have preview. Rest journals can be accessed through WP:TWL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• I made few edits today. On progress. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:48, 2 April 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)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Providing references, inline citations. Sections towards the end of the article (culture, education) not done yet. Certainly needs more time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dwaipayanc, happy to see you on this! Time is allowed at FAR as long as progress is being made. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've begun to work on the article. Sorry, it has taken longer than I had thought, but I'm improving the pictures while I read the history and will start rewriting the history sections in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

There is MOS:SANDWICHing pushed down into the third section of the article, caused by the excess of images in the infobox; perhaps lose a row of images in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

One edit in ten days; shall we Proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Sandy. Thanks for the timely reminder. I'm reading and making notes. I will start editing again in a day or two, starting with the history section. PS Please note that this is a vital topic. It is also viewed a lot. The article receives an average of 1100 page views a day. The recent TFAs on the other hand, have received an average of 50 (outside of the TFA day itself). If TFAs are a sample of what is coming into WP:FA, and if an article exists to the extent it has readers (some version of Schroedinger's cat), it means it takes three weeks of the inflow to match Darjeeling, and were it to constitute the outflow, something substantial would be lost (though I am by no means conflating popularity and vitality). To my way of thinking, this article is worth saving. My style of working is not linear. I don't know what else to say. Please allow more time. But please keep reminding us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Per my analysis, we are in violent agreement, but please keep the work progressing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:) Amazing, how similar. Will do. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There were some edits today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Active improvements still happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm updating the history with more modern sources. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update? Three months in, and the images in the article are at an alarming state of MOS:SANDWICH, making the article hard to read. Demographics (at least) are still outdated (I haven't checked other sections). And maintenance tags are still in place. Much more than History needs to be addressed here; F&f are you sure this is salvageable? Is there a plan for how/who/when to finish up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it very much is. Very sorry, but I was caught up with major POV issues arising from the Kashmir Files. Sorted out just this morning. All my attention will belong to that page. As for the plan, it should be done before the end of April, probably earlier. What if we revisit this April 15? If it is still in the doldrums, I will be the first one to propose the boot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  OK, thanks (it's depressing to view the FAR page weekly and find a growing number of unaddressed nominations; at least having a timeline helps know which are abandoned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: I am not attending the History section or images (that is F&f's department); however, I am trying to take care of many other sections. As for demography, the data is actually not really outdated. The data from 2021 census is not available yet (census 2021 has been delayed due to the pandemic). So, the data there is the most recent reliable data, from 2011 Census of India. There is some data from 2001 census as well in that section, to give a comparative view. Once census 2021 data is available (perhaps in next 18 months), the 2001 data would be removed, 2021 data will be added, and 2011 data will remain (in a modified form) for comparison.

Also, I have tried to take care of most citation needed tags, updated sections such as civic administration, civil utilities, culture. . Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That makes me feel better as I know precious little about the demography or civic utilities ... and have only recently boned up on the history. Thank you @Dwaipayanc: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also I will replace the maps I have added in the history section with fewer but more focused maps Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• Current issues:
  • The Future section still cites sources from 5 years ago or more. It should only include up to date information.
  • The article, especially exploration section, suffers from WP:PROSELINE issues. Not all the mentioned incidents are necessarily WP:DUE in this article.
  • The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs per MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 00:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I've done some work on the exploration and future section, though I'm having a hard time finding any recent sources about Obama's plan to send people to Mars in the 2030's. Blue Jay (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I have restored the fifth paragraph to the lead. A careful read of WP:LEAD will show that this trend (seen at FAC) of reducing leads is not supported by WP:LEAD, and there are many more characteristics of a well-written lead than the forced restriction to four paragraphs. I am not saying this lead is well written or complies with lead, but a five-para lead for an article this size is not what ails the lead. Please focus on the substance of what LEAD says, and if doing that requires five paragraphs, please use them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Are there any other sections that need updated information other than the future subsection of Exploration? Blue Jay (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• There are WP:proseline issues in Exploration section. I wonder if it is necessary to mention absolutely every exploratory vehicle intended to go to Mars? Or just mention the most important ones while explaining why they're important? (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think we should just mention the important ones, as I think some could be put in the Exploration on Mars article. Blue Jay (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Been wondering, should the volcanoes, tectonic sites, and holes sub-subsections be merged as a single subsection? They're all physical features of Mars, after all. Blue Jay (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    I'd oppose this because then the higher-level section might be too long. (t · c) buidhe 09:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• The article looks in much better shape now. Do you feel satisfied with it Blue Jay? I wonder if it would be possible to ask someone who knows more about planets than I do to look it over. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't have a lot of experience on this kind of thing, so I'd reccommend asking someone else who has an input on this subject. Blue Jay (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    SandyGeorgia do you know anyone on wiki who knows something about planets and is willing to look it over? (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, no :( The planet articles were almost all featured last decade, and the WikiProject was strong, but as far as I know, all of the editors responsible for that body of work have moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

XOR'easter and Femke might knows. 2001:4455:364:A800:305D:D13C:2D4A:3283 (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2

Maybe you can ping them for their input? Blue Jay (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Femke says she is suffering from long covid symptoms but I've left a query for XOR'easter in case they are willing and able to offer assistance. (t · c) buidhe 23:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to do more than a spot-check right now (I've a big rewrite project I need to make serious progress on this weekend), but I gave it a read and also left a reminder at the Astronomy WikiProject. I noticed that the web citations aren't consistently formatted; some use {{cite web}} and some don't. Is that a major deal by FA standards? XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response, XOR'easter. The citations are an issue, but one that's straightforward to fix. Ideally, before I or someone else puts a lot of effort into citation cleanup, I'd rather know if there are any major content issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the proseline issue for the exploration section is the only one to deal with other than the citations, but I'm not sure. Blue Jay (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I remain concerned about the article organization and rambling Table of Contents: the Table of Contents when the article passed FAC may help. The Viewing section as one example, seems very chopped up and may be consolidated to one section, to help flatten the TOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Table of Contents appears to be fixed. Blue Jay (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

To handle the proseline issue, I'd zap everything in the "Exploration" section after the paragraph that begins As of 2021, Mars is host to fourteen functioning spacecraft. There's just too much "a press release happened, so we added it here" to sort out. XOR'easter (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Done (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Citation standardization may be the next priority. XOR'easter (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I checked a few refs and they all had failed verification issues, now flagged in the article :( (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Three out of four "failed verification" tags resolved now, I think. XOR'easter (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • OK, I took care of the fourth. XOR'easter (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• We still have an WP:EL farm that needs to be cleaned up/trimmed to the most relevant links. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Zapped a few. I'm almost inclined to nuke the whole section from orbit and ask that items only be reincluded if an affirmative case can be made for them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Throughout the planet articles, the images seem to get out of control. Why are they all necessary? It begins to look like a picture book; can an evaluation be made as to why so many images must be crammed in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• What is the citation style? As one example, sometimes the publisher is NASA, other times Nasa.gov.
• What makes space.com a high-quality reliable source?
• The German Aerospace Center (DLR) citation goes nowhere.

  It is apparent that a thorough citation check and cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Second and third sentences of the lead, referred, refers, repetitive; it looks like the second half of the second sentence could be better made part of the third sentence,, with recast wording.
• The days and seasons are comparable to those of Earth, because the rotation period as well as the tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane are similar. Mars is the site of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any planet in the Solar System, and of Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are small and irregularly shaped. --> ?? -->

  Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any Solar System planet, and Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System, are on Mars. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two small and irregularly shaped moons, Phobos and Deimos. The days and seasons on Mars are comparable to those of Earth as the planets have a similar rotation period and tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane.

• The latest spacecraft to successfully land on Mars are CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover, landed on 14 May 2021. Define CNSA acronym ... land, lander, landed ... find a way to vary the wording, of just truncate --> ?? --> CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover landed on Mars on 14 May 2021.
• The Zhurong rover was successfully deployed on 22 May 2021, which makes China the second country to successfully deploy a rover on Mars, after the United States.[22] ... successfully deployed, successfully deployed, repetitive. --? --> With Zhurong on 22 May 2021, China became the second country to successfully depoly a rover on Mars. ??

  OK, stopping there, my suggestions are not likely the best; a copyeditor is needed, and thorough prose review is probablhhy in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Deadlink removed, some prose edits made. I want to let that sit for a bit and see if anyone is upset with the modifications I made to the lede. More thoughts about/work with the sourcing will hopefully follow when I can eke out the time. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I see XOR'easter cleaning up messes right and left. The citations are utterly out of control; have a look at one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's modern science for you; collaborations get big. Just be happy we don't have to cite the discovery of the Higgs boson, where the coauthor list clocked in at a cool 24 pages and 5,154 names. I'm not so much a fan of removing the information completely, though; I'd rather just limit the display with display-authors=3 or so. XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I only did one so you could revert me if needed, but I don't know how anyone can edit around all that ... it's impossible to find the text ... but up to you, revert if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox ... astronomy articles seem to attract too many images. Choices need to be made: with long infoboxes that take up three sections of the article, there's no room to also have a gazillion images that are bunched at the top or causing MOS:SANDWICH. My suggestion would be to lose half of the infobox and half of the images: split the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Being able to look up numerical information quickly is an important use case for astronomy pages. I'd rather lose pictures and keep the infobox; pretty pictures of space things are easy to come by. I'd maybe remove the "Artist's impression of how Mars may have looked four billion years ago", the image that "prompted speculation that some shapes were worm-like fossils" (since they weren't), "Orbits of Phobos and Deimos" (doesn't seem to add much), and the portrait of Galileo (not much reason to single him out among all the people mentioned in that section). XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove away :) I don't want to get in your way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on the citations, starting with the ones that looked the most dubious (defunct random websites from the mid-2000s and such). I've been trying to standardize them as I go along. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 31 March 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.

National emblem of Belarus

Notified: Czalex, Cukrakalnis, Zscout370, Nieszczarda2, Pofka, Valentinian, Mzajac, Cordyceps-Zombie, WP Belarus, WP Heraldry andvexillology, noticed over a year ago

Review section

This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:

• The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
• The whole sentence "According to the formerly popular historian Arnold J. Toynbee, the pagan Lithuanians performed sweeping conquests of the Orthodox Ruthenians and this medieval greatness of Lithuania was conveyed in its heraldic emblem – a galloping horseman." is problematic (why Toynbee is the source here when there are thousands more reliable and recent sources to qoute? Toynbee wasn't an expert on Belarusian or Lithuanian heraldry)
• ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian". That's very close to hoax
• Lithuanian mythologists presented as a reliable source of information (why they are even quoted here?)

The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: According to Encyclopedia Britannica (possibly the most reliable information source in the entire world), no distinctive Belarusian national symbols were developed until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article). Also, Belarus had no statehood traditions until the 20th century and only in 1918 they created their first sovereignty (see: Britannica's article). Encyclopedia Britannica is the cornerstone of this article. That being said, I see no significant issues regarding Belarus' national symbols, but the "20th century" and "As a state symbol in the Republic of Belarus" sections certainly requires expansion with more details. I have strong doubts about this article's status as FP in 2022 because it certainly is not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia, thus I support its denomination from a FP status. -- Pofka (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. The Belarus-related articles in Britannica have not had major updates since being transferred online. So much has happened in scholarship since then. They are of a substandart quality nowadays. In addition, the articles on Belarus and the flag of Belarus do not deal with Pahonia directly anyway. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Britannica is factually correct and ensures WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Britannica is undoubtedly written in NPOV and it is trustworthy. These are the most important things. Britannica's article about Belarus was last updated on March 2, 2022, so it is certainly not outdated. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support and suggest the POV template placed. The Pahonia part of the article does not meet several WP:FA criteria.

It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• There should have been a demotion of the article National emblem of Belarus from Featured-class to something lower already a long time ago, owing to the article's shortcomings.

Regarding what Marcelus wrote. When Marcelus claims The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem, he is misconstruing the article. What he claims goes against WP:RS like Encyclopedia Britannica, various academic books and journals, even the expert vexillologist Whitney Smith among others. Some of Marcelus' criticisms are simply untrue, as there are explanatory phrases like Belarusian nationalists viewed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a historical form of Belarusian statehood along with medieval principalities of Polotsk, Turov and others and there is also an explanation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis its Slavic populations which are connected to the Belarusians. This is necessary for context. Toynbee's phrase also adds to that context, so it is unreasonable to remove it. Blaming statements that rely on Western sources for trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem is inaccurate and also a suspicious statement that reminds me of WP:POV. At its essence, the phrase blames WP:RS for being WP:POV. I must point out that the statements about ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian" come from WP:RS. This does not mean that they are undoubtedly true, but still, just erasing it would be improper and against Wiki guidelines. As for "Lithuanian mythologists", those are included because of the sentence Some Belarusian historians make a connection between the Pahonia and the cultural context, religious and mythological beliefs of Belarus's earliest inhabitants. Belarus' earliest inhabitants include Balts/Lithuanians. Ergo, they must be written about. Finally, the proposed solution that there should be more reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists, is totally OK. However, care should be taken, as even some professional historians are NOT WP:NPOV (not according to me, but to academic sources), e.g. Jan Zaprudnik (named as nationalist in John Stanley's Book review of Jan Zaprudnik's "Belarus: At a Crossroads in History" (from 1994): Zaprudnik's views are those of a moderate nationalist).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sources can be neutral, but their selection can create a non-neutral narrative. As in this case. It is obvious that the article is not written in a neutral way. And if the statement that Russian culture prevailed in Belarus comes from sources, it proves the worst about these sources and is a confirmation that they are not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV sources means that narrative is WP:NPOV, that's the reason that the guideline exists. Statements like Belarus only beginning in 1918 are WP:NPOV. If the Coat of arms existing for centuries before 1918 suddenly means that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem according to you, then it can't be helped. Also, it proves the worst about these sources - you are talking about Encyclopedia Britannica. Calling it unreliable is very strong language.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, it seems that everyone is in agreement that this needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Cukrakalnis (Who says the article should be demoted) made one edit; there has been no other improvement, and the article still contains large amounts of uncited text, along with what now appears to be an NPOV dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC I haven't read the above, except for HF's original statement. However, I see that minimal edits have been made to the article in the past few months, and uncited statements, paragraphs, and sections remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Octopus card

Notified: HongQiGong, BrownHairedGirl, 香港分子, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject Numismatics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, talk page notification 2022-02-18

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, there are issues with non-cited content, overreliance on primary sources, and lack of updating. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note - This is a FA that has been promoted, demoted, and then promoted again, so if the FAR closes as delist, then I think the record-keeping will be slightly different somewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC: Uncited statements remain, the last edit to the article was Jan. 17. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Hove to FARC per above (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - minimal engagement, issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Royal National College for the Blind

Notified: This is Paul, WikiProject Higher education, WikiProject Disability, talk page notification 2022-02-06

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with datedness and comprehensiveness, which were raised last month at talk but have not been addressed. The state of FAs in post-secondary education is truly dire at this point—of the 15 FAs on contemporary post-secondary institutions from September 2020, this and United States Military Academy are the only ones remaining, and there's only been one new FA passed in the past decade. A save here would be really nice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC History section's last event was 2009, Education section's last event was 2010, and I think the "Financial crisis" section should be merged with History and trimmed. The last edit to the article was Feb. 16. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no edits to resolve issues (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - minimal/insufficient engagement; issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness/currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, regrettably. There has been no engagement with the issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Cyclol

Notified: WillowW, Rjwilmsi, WP Cell bio, WP History of Science, WP Chem, talk page notification 2021-03-11

Review section

This 2006 FA was noticed as having considerable uncited text a year ago, and there has been no progress. If someone engages, other deficiences can be listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've gone though the paragraphs that previously completely lacked refs. They mostly were supportable with reuse of refs already cited in the page, so I've favoured that for the most part.

The actual content and images are up to standard in my opinion. I'm not a big fan of figure numbering in Wikipedia articles, since in makes addition and removal of images more fiddly. However this article is stable enough that it doesn't make a huge difference so I've not removed them.

There's a few relevant recent papers that might be worth integrating.

• Alkorta, Ibon; Sánchez-Sanz, Goar; Trujillo, Cristina; Azofra, Luis Miguel; Elguero, José (2012-06-01). "A theoretical reappraisal of the cyclol hypothesis". Structural Chemistry. 23 (3): 873–877. doi:10.1007/s11224-012-9947-8. ISSN 1572-9001.
• Mendoza‐Sanchez, Rodrigo; Corless, Victoria B.; Nguyen, Q. Nhu N.; Bergeron‐Brlek, Milan; Frost, John; Adachi, Shinya; Tantillo, Dean J.; Yudin, Andrei K. (2017-08-31). "Cyclols Revisited: Facile Synthesis of Medium‐Sized Cyclic Peptides". Chemistry – A European Journal. 23 (54): 13319–13322. doi:10.1002/chem.201703616. ISSN 0947-6539. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:CAPTIONS "should be succinct"; the image captions are uncited paragraphs.
• MOS:BOLDing used inappropriately in text.
• WP:LEAD is not an accessible summary of the article, and is overly detailed; needs to be rewritten.
• There are a whopping 22 uses of the word however. See Overuse of however and User:John/however.
• Overuse of also should be reviewed: see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing
• The lead refers to figures which are found much later, in the body of the article. (???)
• Page numbers are missing on books.
• The "Illustration of the Scientific Method" appears to contain original research (page numbers and quotes needed to determine if WP:SYNTH is present).
• Statements that require independent sourcing are cited to Wrinch.
• Editorializing, sample: "In her initial article, Wrinch stated clearly stated" (there is more).
• "cyclol reaction itself" was verified, but cyclol reaction is a redlink (as is cyclol fabric); if this is the correct article for discussing those, there should at least be redirects. Naming in general: renaming to cyclol hypothesis, and creation of cyclol reaction, should be discussed. And the implausibility of the hypothesis should be mentioned in the first few lines of the lead. MOS:OVERLINK review as well ... beauty ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Disappointing topic. From my admittedly superficial reading (I am not expert on this field), this article pitches a largely discredited/ignored/niche set of papers as something significant, which it does not seem to be. Take the example of J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 2, 330–333. The article has been cited a grand total of 4x. Or "The Cyclol Hypothesis" by Wrinch, Dorothy in Nature, Volume 145, Issue 3678, pp. 669-670 (1940), which has been cited 3x. And "Nature of the Linkages in Proteins" D. M. Wrinch, Nature 139, 718 (1937). Cited 1x. The article also is sort of case study about the scientific method, I guess in a sort of harmless way. One might say that the article is a case study in WP:UNDUE. Lots of famous people and papers cited (Bragg, Pauling, Einstein, ...), but those citations seem contrived and seem to be intended to add weight to a fluffy report. If one wants to discuss Xray crystallography, bonding, or quantum theory, modern sources should be cited IMHO. But no modern source would cite the cyclol hypothesis, because it didnt work out ("dustbin of history") just like most early work when scientists are muddling around, trying to figure things out. Apologies for my directness, which is intended to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That confirms my impression; it also struck me that a lot of the content fits better at Dorothy Maud Wrinch, and that some sections are original research (like Scientific Method, relying on sources that don't even mention the hypothesis). And that one has to read too far in to realize it's in the dustbin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd disagree with this. I think that discredited theories warrant inclusion from a history-of-science perspective, especially since this page is clear that it's an obsolete model. I remember this topic being noted in my biochemistry undergrad as an example of the early wild west of biochem along with things like the pauling DNA triplex and the ox phos wars (both of which I would like to see have wp pages eventually). Indeed Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories is surprisingly slim. I agree with the 'Cyclol hypothesis' or 'Cyclol model of protein structure' or similar would be a better page name. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC would need a lot of work to be salvaged (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC even if someone were to engage, I am unsure this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, accelerated process per Sandy. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could be Improved But of course I would say that, since I wrote it fifteen years ago, my second and admittedly imperfect Featured Article. But after reading these reviews, I expected the article to far worse that it actually is. Yes, the article has flaws, but they are IMO readily remedied, such as trimming the lead and captions and mentioning that the theory is discredited in the lead. Yes, it is an article about a discredited scientific theory, but that alone shouldn't disqualify it from Wikipedia; consider other "dustbin-of-history" examples on Wikipedia, such as the Steady-state model (physics), Lamarckism (biology) or Phlogiston theory (chemistry). Since the article is concerned with the history of the theory, it seems relevant to cite the contemporary literature, although modern articles (such as those cited above in this review) relevant to the theory should also be cited. The suggestion to add modern-day literature on crystallography and quantum mechanics seems anachronistic, since the article is concerned with the methods and ideas of protein structure almost a century ago. I would ask the reviewers to take the time to read the article carefully and to list other objective, well-defined shortcomings of the article besides those given above. I for my part will try to amend them. Willow (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  A re-read and a few patches is not going to convince me this is or can be close to featured material, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for the case. Some of it seems like material for Wrinch's bio, and the scope and name of the article are also problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm open to changing the name of the article; what about Cyclol model of protein structure? The redirects to cyclol reaction, etc. also seem like good suggestions. And I have no objections to improving the writing, e.g., the overuse of "however" and "also". The figure captions can also be shortened. Some captions are long only to help the reader to understand what is being depicted.

  The scope of the article is to describe this discredited scientific theory, which was the first three-dimensional model of protein structure, as well as its development and demise. Although others may disagree, I would argue that the histories of discredited theories (such as the three others mentioned above) deserve a place on Wikipedia and should not be barred a priori from becoming Featured Articles. Thought experiment: Would we strip Island of stability of its FA status, if it were definitively refuted?

  Whether this article deserves to be a Featured Article is not within my power to decide. What is within my power is to improve the article in response to well-defined and actionable criticisms, which I politely request. Willow (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  My objection is not because it's a discredited theory; it's how the article is put together. I suggest a sustained amount of work would be needed to address all of the issues. There's the lists of issues on the page already (just an overview, on closer examination, more is typically found), and there seems to be WP:SYNTH in the "Illustration of the scientific method" section at least. Standards at FAC have changed considerably since this article was featured; page numbers and most recent scholarly sources are expected, and the two new sources listed above would need to be incorporated, as well as solving the naming and writing issues. I would not want to see this FAR stalled on the page unless there is truly a commitment from numerous editors to doing this work; it is quite a bit for one editor. Willow, you've been absent from Wikipedia for quite some time, and I'm unaware if you know how much standards have changed since 2006 to 2008?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Also, there are far fewer editors to collaborate on articles these days. Let's suppose the Gods smiled upon Wikipedia and the one-and-only Tim Vickers returned to active editing: where do you think his efforts are most needed and would be best utilized? We need him on at about eight very highly viewed FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I will do what I can and if Tim and others can contribute, then I will be only too delighted. Of course the cyclol model is not the most pressing issue on Wikipedia. If you want to end this FAR in the interests of time and because the task seems too great for one editor, then I accept your assessment with good grace.

  Nonetheless I ask a boon. According to my understanding, an FAR may last 3 weeks, especially if the article is being worked on actively, as we see on the current WP:FAR. I request that editors be given until the 31st of March to improve the Cyclol article before sending it to FARC. Willow (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  FARs can last as articles are improving; that is not a problem. But because you have been long (mostly) absent, I just wanted to be sure you were aware of how much has changed in the standards of featured articles, but more significantly, that the kinds of collaborations that used to routinely happen in bringing and keeping articles at featured standard are now extremely rare on Wikipedia. There are fewer editors, and fewer FA-knowledgeable editors who have the time to help when a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. That is, I wanted to be sure you understood the likelihood that you would have to a) do the bulk of the rewrite yourself, while b) perhaps not knowing that the standards today are much higher than they were when the article was first written. The expectation today is that everything will be cited to the highest quality and most recent scholarly sources; the days when FAs were an editor writing what they knew, and more or less attaching reliable sources to that text, are no more. And I'm not complaining that this article is somehow less important than the others, rather pointing out that very highly viewed and core articles are going without improvements for the very reasons I mention, so that you will go in knowing that getting help from others may not happen. I saw this, sadly, at History of Minnesota; Minnesota last decade had pretty much a featured topic, with almost everything about the state at FA level. That was when many editors collaborated and shared the work; today, the editors who attempt to save a rusty bronze star often find they are going it alone, and become discouraged and give up. Graham Beards and I, with a few others new since your time, have done our best in the biomedical realm, but much of Tim Vickers' work is now at risk. I am also worried that the one editor who can rewrite this article (you) has been fairly disengaged from Wikipedia; do you have the commitment to see this through? Those are things for you to ponder; as to how FAR functions, if you say you are willing to do the work, and productive work is ongoing, FARs are allowed to stay open. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  PS, page numbers are now more typically expected on long journal articles for verification. For example, in the biomedical realm, have a look at the citations at the newer featured articles at Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies, and menstrual cycle as well as others reworked by Graham such as introduction to viruses and immune system. Using sfns can be helpful, if you decide to go that way. I'm also concerned about the amount of content cited to Wrinch; some of it needs independent sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm happy to help out Willow on this. She certainly knows the topic better than I do so I'll play the minor role, but a chunk of the issues are stylistic rather than substantive and I've sufficient background in the topic to not introduce errors when editing for style. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck my Move declaration then; please keep the page posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If we can get consensus for a name change and scope of article, and if the article is moved mid-FAR, please ping me to fix this page to the corrected names and moves, etc. No changes are needed in the articlehistory template on talk, as it was designed to withstand article moves (I sometimes see editors moving all the old pages in articlehistory, which is not necessary). My choice would be Cyclol hypothesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update, no edits, feedback or apparent progress after 22 March, since our last conversation, are not giving a reassuring feeling about extending the time on this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, and discussion of article scope needs to be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Make Way for Ducklings

Notified: WP Children's literature, WP US, 2021-04-07

Review section

This FA was promoted in 2006 by a nominator blocked since 2009 for sockpuppetry. Concerns about the article include comprehensiveness, need to reflect recent scholarship, and the need for a source-to-text integrity check related to the sock possibilities; these concerns are covered in the talk page discussion.

Because there are few Wikiprojects or editors to notify, I am also notifying literarature editors who might be willing or able to have a look here: User talk:AleatoryPonderings, User talk:Barkeep49, User talk: Olivaw-Daneel, and User talk:Vanamonde93. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have quite a hard time believing that this short article on a children's literature landmark is comprehensive or based on high-quality sources. The Reaction section simply quotes a few one-off reviews (one from an archived version of a non-RS) without placing them in context in surveys of children's literature, retrospectives on McCloskey, or similar. The result is a grab-bag of quotes, not a thorough review of the critical impact. (This also means it is not particularly well written, since to my mind being well written requires paragraphs to flow naturally from one to another and show a logical progression of ideas.) This is just a preliminary assessment and I will try to find some better sources soon. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Apologies, I'm far too busy to participate here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, this article is so extremely under-developed that it fails WP:WIAFA on nearly every level. Several sections are only two or three sentences long, some of the sources are the book itself or unreliable blogs. It's not quite as alarming as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 or Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alpha Kappa Alpha/archive1, but it's definitely going to take far more work than I think the scope of FAR requires. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - This is one of the most lackluster Featured Articles I have ever read. GamerPro64 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, sourcing, and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delist - It needs a huge overhaul to make it presentable. GamerPro64 05:55, 4 April 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

Review section

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)
• Move to FARC, a few edits, no significant improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Delist - while he's been updated as a coach, there's still a large chunk at the end of his playing career that isn't covered properly in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It looks like the needed updates are at least in progress; I'll give this a reread soon. Courtesy ping to SandyGeorgia. Hog Farm _Talk 19:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, per HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Holding off for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Keep - Just update the article yourself. There's two and a half seasons missing for a no-name player, not a large chunk of the article. It will take one to two hours. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  It does need to happen, though, for this to be kept. If no one else is willing and able, would you do this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not practically gonna be able to work on that - In a bit of a busy spot with work, I have no idea where to even start trying to find sources for Canadian basketball, and I'm trying to find time to work through a project of my own. Hog Farm _Talk 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would have no idea how to work on basketball content; baseball, yes, but I would not know what best sources are and what content was even relevant. Sportsfan77777, your keep is not based on useful logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Starting to give this a final review with the hopes of getting it polished up enough to be able to keep. I've been tagging some minor failed verification in the college career section, but it looks like something that should be easily fixable if a log of all his games in a season can be located. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Sportsfan77777: - This is looking much better and shouldn't take much to fix, but I do have a sourcing question. Is D-League Digest (cited in the article) considered a reliable source, or does it need to be removed? Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think so, it says it's a part of ESPN. But regardless, the author of that article is now the Assistant GM of the Chicago Bulls, and therefore I think would qualify as a recognized expert. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

      Being a "recognized expert" does not establish reliability: the wording at WP:SPS is "when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

      • I've been fairly busy this week; I really hope to get back to this after the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Sportsfan77777: - what are your thoughts here now? I've tagged a single failed verification in the 18-19 section, and have made a pass through the career section adding his seasonal gamelog to support a few instances of season-highs, as well removing some editorializing. From what I can see, what is really left here is fixing that one FV instance, updating the lead, fixing some ref formatting, determining if New York Post is appropriate for a BLP FA (WP:RSP is not flattering, and NYP was challenged in the 2016 FAC), and then finding something to ease the transition between the 09/10 and 13/14 seasons. He doesn't seem to have been in pro basketball, but there needs to be some sort of transition. Hog Farm _Talk 05:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I rewrote the lead to focus more on his NBL Canada career. Besides that, I changed the New York Post statement to say 'hyped as a "prodigy" by the New York Post' instead of 'labelled as a "prodigy" by the New York Post. That way the statement is more about the New York Post itself rather than a statement about Clinkscales' potential. I think this is more in line with the adjacent statements that focus on his national recognition rather than his ability. With regard to the gap, I thought it was covered well enough by what was already written ("with no indication that he joined any other team since his tenure with the BayHawks"). I think that should be just about everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I tried searching and couldn't find anything useful for the gap, either. Newspapers.com has nothing for him during the time, and filtering Google results for 2011-2013 is just bringing up the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (which is apparently related to Kennesaw State University somehow) and then a blog post about him playing 1-on-1 against Jay Williams. I'm okay with accepting Steve Weinman, who holds a high-ranking position with a NBA team, as an acceptable source for basketball topics. That just leaves a run through to check reference formatting I want to do soon, and then determining if New York Post is an acceptable BLP reference for a FA. Any thoughts, Sandy? Hog Farm _Talk 04:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I dunno; having a hard time with that one. On the one hand, it's a BLP, and we should never use a marginal source for a BLP. On the other hand, the information sourced is not sensitive, and NYPost is considered less reliable for NY politics and police; this is sports. We should try to develop a broader consensus on this one.

  But there are other things in that para I don't like. The NJ.com report never mentions Clinkscales; that sentence is synth-y and either a) should come out, or b) the nj.com citation should move to after the comma (it is citing the college level). And thereafter is an unnecessary additive. I agree with Graham and Tony1 on such unnecessary fillers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've removed the "thereafter", moved the ref, and also took out one usage of "however". Hog Farm _Talk 05:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Giants2008 do you have an opinion on the above query about using NY Post in a sports BLP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oopsie. Re-reading the FAC, I see Giant2008 was in there, and has already opined, as did Nikkimaria and others. So, if we keep the content now, we are only keeping that which passed FAC. I'd still feel better if we had broader consensus, as it is odd that nothing else comes up, even with a newspaper.com search. Maybe if we beg and send flowers or chocolate or something, Ealdgyth will give us a ruling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm I am stymied at what declaration to enter here. I am a bit uncomfortable with the NY Post, and that was reinforced when I read Paige Bueckers. High school student with plenty of high school coverage. While Clinkscales was from the media heavy Northeast, and only the NY Post reported on him? No local coverage? Not sure what to do here, and whether the article would be adequate if all of NYPost was deleted. Would a post at RSN be out of order? Or would the result just be obvious ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair assessment. The NY Post is his local coverage. I would think local coverage would be acceptable for information about his early life or personal life. Bueckers was also one of the best basketball prospects ever, while Clinkscales was relatively obscure. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... I was looking for more New Jersey coverage (because of the camp being in Teaneck), but you are correct that he was a New Yorker (and Teaneck is just across the GW bridge from NY). Your argument makes sense. I still wish we could get others to opine on this before we close it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've opened this at RSN, hopefully we can get some feedback from there. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we name the article in the RSN discussion? I'm not sure how RSN works best ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have yet to read the full article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do either. I keep thinking "there has to be something", but even newspapers.com only brings up this from before 2004 (when his college career began), and all it says is that one publication said he might go to USF (South Florida). My gut is that we shouldn't be using NYPost here, but I seriously cannot find any coverage here for that time period of his life. Even filtering Google search results for 1996 to 2003 is just giving me this, which is only a passing mention of his Atlanta AAU team and doesn't cover anything not already in the article. My only guess is that online sports media may not have been as established in the late '90s/early oughts, but I'm seriously shocked at how little there is here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SG

• jargon ... "including a layup with four seconds left in regulation," ... regulation means what?
  • It's the standard time of the game (non-overtime). I read the sources and didn't see an indication of overtime, so I've replaced with "four second left in the game". Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Still working; the article needs a copyedit, and I'm not the best, but in the absence of Z1720, giving it a go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Must we have this in the lead? "A 6-foot-1-inch (1.85 m), 185-pound (84 kg) point guard,[1]" ... I recognize that height matters in basketball, but what a lot of formatting to absorb in the second sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've removed the weight, as a scan of several other sports bio FAs, including a couple basketball ones, did not show any with the weight in the lead. Since it's not in the body that I see, I've added the ref into the infobox Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Second para of the lead, jargon, what is a three-star recruit? "Several major college basketball programs showed interest in him as a three-star recruit." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Second para of the lead, what are the Bayhawks, and soon after what (college)? "from 2004 to 2008 and joined the BayHawks soon after" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of this, I think Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Second paragraph of the lead: all of this needs reworking, and I don't speak basket ball well enough to attempt it:

  For his entire college career, Clinkscales had a limited impact as a scorer despite his passing ability, becoming the fifth freshman at DePaul to pass for 100 assists. While most of his statistics stagnated over the years, he led NCAA Division I in assist-to-turnover ratio as a senior.

  Something like ????

  Clinkscales became the fifth freshman at DePaul to pass for 100 assists. During his college career, he had a limited impact as a scorer. While most of his statistics stagnated over his college years, he led NCAA Division I in assist-to-turnover ratio as a senior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've tagged "he had a limited impact as a scorer" as original research, as it's evidently Wikipedia-provided interpretation of statistics since this isn't supported in the body. Hog Farm _Talk 14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Starting this sentence with "as a professional" is awkward ... "As a professional, Clinkscales was selected in the 2008 NBA Development League Draft by the Erie BayHawks, where he played most of his D-League career. " --> ?? --> His professional career began when Clinkscales was selected ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Taken care of Hog Farm _Talk 15:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The article needs more copyediting than I should be attempting; Sportzeditz, I noticed your work at Paige_Bueckers; might you have a look in here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 23 March 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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2 § Update 8 Jan

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Update 14 January

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 14 January

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Update 1 February 2022

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 1 February 2022

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll see. A bit busy for the next few days, so don't wait too long for me. As a heads up, I have no familiarity with Rowling and never read the books as a kid because my family considered them objectional. Hog Farm _Talk 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm, no hurry, and no prior knowledge makes for a good reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Similar to Hog my time is limited at the moment but I'm adding a note to do a read through and anticipate getting to it later this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No hurry; I am pinging people for feedback in bits and pieces, so we aren't overwhelmed by too many comments at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I will be starting some comments on the talk page. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Update 17 March

The interim lead that was installed on 2 March has held up with no kerfuffle, and the article remains stable.

Rowling made some news during the last month because of long-standing involvement with orphanage advocacy reform in Ukraine, and a personal appeal for donations towards Ukraine relief, along with a tweet she made in March related to interpretations of UK laws on gender issues. A very minor amount of disruptive editing was seen at J. K. Rowling, as well as at sub-articles Politics of J. K. Rowling and Featured List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling; all have been handled by normal editing and discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing, misinterpreted sources, or otherwise fixed-through-normal-processes edits were:

• IP blanking of text at the Awards sub-article
• Misrepresentation of a source; content rewritten and moved to Politics of J. K. Rowling. [7]
• Content added twice that misrepresents a source on information already in the article; addressed without kerfuffle.
• Disruptive editwarring to the lead by a now-blocked editor with a history of similar; that is, normal editing processes worked here.

The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:

• WP:CITATION OVERKILL
• inadequate use of summary style, trimming needed
  • All sections in the article except this one have been trimmed considerably to reflect summary style, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added
• failure to use the highest quality most recent sources, eg, Pugh, 2020 which gives a good overview
• unnecessary reliance on primary sources like tweets which are covered by secondary sources
• excess detail on who agreed or disagreed with Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues; detail covered at the sub-article.

These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the current state of that subsection isn't ideal, but unlike with the literary analysis section, I do not think it is fatal to FA status; relative to the excess verbosity that has crept into other FAs, this is almost trivial, and while source improvements would be useful, what the best sources say isn't terribly different from what the article says at the moment. I would welcome further improvement, but have no time to make any myself, and in the absence of any rewrites would !vote to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement :) I believe that the work needed in this section should be minor compared to the literary work already done, but would like to hear from others before we get going! I also agree that the article is now essentially at FA standard, although the issues in the Transgender people do open the article to charges of WP:UNDUE, as the length is not proportional. And the citation overkill just looks sloppy, particularly when we can use Pugh 2020 to say most of what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically agreed as well: the only issue I see as really serious on skimming the section is the obvious overcitation issues. I'd also like to get rid of detailed lists of who supports her and who doesn't: other than the actors of the main characters in the movies, I think most of these people aren't important to name. I'd also like to get rid of the lengthy quotes from Rowling: besides the general WP policy against lengthy quotes, Rowling's detractors usually don't accuse her of saying outright hateful things in plain text but of using dog-whistles. So, if we include the quotes, we would also need to include an explanation of why the quotes are objectionable, and that's way too much. Just say she's said things people objected to and don't dwell on the details. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Continued on talk page, where the work will happen. (This page is more of a summary of where we stand on the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this article. I don't have much to add that I haven't said a while back about that section, but feel free to ping me when more specifics are proposed. I do suggest coming up with a better name for the section itself; what her comments were on had more to do with policy or how to conceptualize gender itself rather than on "people" per se, and that framing could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. Perhaps "transgender topics" (like the article Feminist views on transgender topics), "transgender identity" or "gender identity". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads I have been concerned about that distinction as well. Perhaps that should be our first order of business, if we can convene enough editors for a discussion. I wanted to allow some time for everything done so far to settle, to make sure it was stable. I'll wait a few more days to see who engages, and then start a section on FAR talk to address first the section name. Do you have anything else to add to my list of issues above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep it "transgender people" (or perhaps "transgender rights") for two reasons. Number one is that's pretty clearly the most common name for this, and number two is that I disagree that Rowling is talking about topics as airy as "how to conceptualize gender itself". None of her comments are academic, they're all situated quite firmly in a political context, and that political context is the acceptance of transgender people in the UK. She supported Maya Forstater who insulted and misgendered specific trans people. She opposes trans women in women's bathrooms and is for more gatekeeping against legal changing of gender. It's not just "sex is real" that she's arguing for; "sex is real" is rhetoric for a policy agenda that she outlines in the essay and which has much more concrete consequences than some academic argument about what exactly gender is. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

My general sense is that if we trim the quotes and get rid of the "these people liked what she said and these people didn't" litany, it will be of acceptable quality. I am still unable to take the lead on this due to IRL commitments and general wiki-fatigue, but I will weigh in on specific proposals if pinged. Perhaps the easiest approach would simply be to trim specific sentences and cites that do not add anything useful, rather than trying to rewrite the prose wholesale? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. As everyone else seems busy, I will work up a suggestion/start along these lines--perhaps by today, but first order of business is to sort the current dilemma wrt collaborative editing. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I basically agree with this approach too. However, there's one set of reactions I think we ought to leave in, and that's the reactions of people involved with the movies (e.g. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, etc). I think that those reactions are an important part of Rowling's notability by themselves. It's not really notable that Julie Bindel supports her or that GLAAD doesn't, but I do think it's notable that a long list of people involved with her work don't support her. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, would you mind recording this with the discussions on the talk page instead of here? We use this page to summarize back where we stand on the work, and if long discussions take hold here, they can stall the overall FAR page. This is a point around which consensus will need to develop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 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[9] interestingly a Guardian opinion piece declared that he was behaving "antithetical to AFL principles" in June 2021.[10] 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)
• Sportsfan77777, how are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I filled in just about all of the missing information, but I still need to proofread everything and fix some of the existing sourcing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Sportsfan77777 - Have you been able to complete proofreading and fixing the original sources? Hog Farm _Talk 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Apologies for the delay. I should have time to get back to it soon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Bumbubookworm: - any thoughts on the state of the article at this point? Hog Farm _Talk 13:26, 22 March 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)

Aza24 I didn't mention the operas and plays, as there is a separate article, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, with a huge list. There is so much art inspired by her story! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Wtfiv: you're doing a job of work on this, nice one! For the record, this is pretty much my area of specialism, so if you want a hand, let me know, and if there's anything specific I can get to without getting under your feet, I will—I've got most of the major scholarship. Happy New Year all! SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Happy New Year!

SN54129 Happy New Year to you too! Right now, I'm at the retrial section, as I'm working forward sequentially. Just let me know what you would like to do, and I can stay out of your way while you are working on it It looks to me there is a lot of work: Retrial, Canonization, Legacy, Visions, Cross-dressing all seem to need a lot of TLM (tender, loving maintenance). If you want to pick a section (and I have no problem handing off the "Retrial" section before I dive in deeper into the research- let me know and I'll stay out of your way. If one of us gets done a section and is ready for another, we can just message each other here.

Also, if you want to edit any preceding section, please do. And, I can follow up with citation formatting as you complete sections, if you find it a hassle. Ideally it'd be great if all citations be linkable, but of course, that is just a preference on my part. (Verifying citation to text integrity- and assessing reliability of sources- has been one of the major issues.) Just let me know what you would like to do. Wtfiv (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hi FAR committee, I think the draft sections in which I took on the lead role in editing (all but "Visions" and "Cross-dressing") are now ready for review. I am particularly grateful to GBRV for all the follow-up editing: patience as my aligning text to source modified much of the original story, opening discussion when needed, addressing issues of detail, cleaning up poorly worded prose, and the tireless copy editing.

GBRV has taken on the lead role in editing the "Visions" and "Cross Dressing" sections and is still working on them. Once GBRV feels they are ready to go, and the FAR review begins, I'll be ready and available to address any concerns raised. Thanks for your patience so far! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead has a series of one- or two-sentence paragraphs which could probably be re-worked to four or five paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fixed: merged post-Paris activities into one paragraph; combined religious legacy with cultural legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also merged all military activity up to the Siege of Paris into one paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that GBRV has been sock-blocked. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  With a direct impact on the integrity of this article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Wtfiv how can the integrity of the article be checked? Is it only sections Visions and Cross dressing, or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the Durova subpage, I happen to notice that both Williamson and Frohlick are cited in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @WP:FAR coordinators: just to make sure they see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129 you offered (above) to look in here; considering the recent development (considerable and decades old socking), your help may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is a 34-page PDF [11] of Williamson in Wirth.

  Williamson, Allen (2006). "Context". In Wirth, Robert (ed.). Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing (PDF). Joan of Arc: Primary Sources Series. Translated by Williamson, Allen. New York: Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies. ISSN 1557-0355. OCLC 61118807. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2006.

  The Academy for Joan of Arc Studies was incorporated in April 2005. Its president is Williamson with an address listed as Sartell, a suburb of St. Cloud (as established by Durova at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets). The registered office of the Academy is in Minneapolis at an address that appears to have been owned by Wirth. This may be a self-published source (as discussed at the community ban discussion, although the connection between the address was not made there). I have tagged it as "better source needed", although I first tagged it RS, mistakenly thinking it was a non-peer-reviewed journal. Considering the earlier stunt of adding a period on to the end of Durova's user name, to make it appear that she had made some edits, we should take care to establish credentials in these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, I've still got quite a few problems with the content of this article, and it badly needs a decent copy-edit. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)I

I'm away from my usual place dealing with personal issues, but can return to the editing around mid-week of next week. If the team is good with what I've done so far. Here's my perspective:

• I agree that Williamson and Frohlick are problematic. I'm careful about them because I also try to negotiate the concerns of other active editors.

• Removing Williamson is no problem. I too ha questions about the Williamson site. I put it in as a compromise with another editor who wanted to keep the issue about Joan's clothing preventing rape. IBut I did look the article over, and it seemed to me that it didn't misquote its primary sources. It's major contribution was the one about Joan's clothing, which I implicitly offered as a collaborative compromise for another active editor. Removing it, and leaving the issue in the "cross-dressing" section with the more reliable sources seems to me to be a reasonable solution. (But I do think there was a lot of Williamson's language in the original article, such as stating the retrial declared Joan innocent when sources state her trial was annulled, incorrectly calling the second trial an appellate court, and removing all language implying that the original trial had inquisitional powers and the suggestion that Joan was primarily executed for cross-dressing)

• I thought I minimized reliance on Frohlick. I just checked, and there's only one reference, accompanied with another source, Pernoud and Clin, who are acknowledged scholars who make a similar point. That said, Frohlick can be edited out with no problem.

• Except for the visions and cross-dressing sections, I feel the sourcing of the article is otherwise solid, though I have no doubt there is need for further editing. I am glad to begin the editing of those two sections, as I've been collecting sources on them and think that they need a great deal of work. I just wanted to make sure that GBRV had had the opportunity to edit first, as I want to ensure respect for the article. I'll begin working on these next week. (Though it means there'll be a lag before I start on the G. Fox article.)
• Finally, there is the biggest problem that I may not be able to address. I have no doubt that Hchc2009's point about copy edit is correct. As Sandy knows, I'm awful at copy editing. I leave a wake of errors behind in my editing. I get too immersed in sourcing and getting it right, and after hours of peering at prose, lose sight of the typos and grammos. That's where I particularly appreciated GBRV's critical editorial eye, even when we disagreed on interpretation and nuance.

My thought was once we get the drafting taken care of- which would be the cross-dressing and visions sections- the team comes in and makes all the needed suggestions allow the article to maintain its featured star. I'm open to whatever solution the team deems appropriate, though my own desired goal would be a solution that keeps the featured article status. To my eye, this seems straightforward if we complete the major revision on the visions and cross-dressing sections , remove the Williamson and the Frohlick (references, which is easy), and if the problems of copy-editing are not fatal to the articles integrity. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are able to accomplish all of that, and if we don't have any socking interference, we should be able to round up people to copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that finishing up shouldn't be hard nor take overly long. Frohlick and Williamson are already deleted. (The Frohlick was just a reference to an image of Joan's signature, but it's not really needed, as it's already in the saint infobox.) That just leaves the last two sections. My major editing concern to date- and the part that leads me to work more slowly- has been ensuring that the project respects the perspective of all editors who felt passionately.

What I do have concerns about is that many of the ancillary Wikipedia articles related to Joan of Arc topics that are linked in the article reference many of the same problematic sources and make many of the same (IMO) poorly sourced and, most likely, incorrect claims. But that's beyond the scope of my commitments. Wtfiv (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv this article is the mother lode, from which the unscrupulous would desire to derive hits.

Please remember to keep Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Fox/archive2 updated, as to whether you can still work there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. I think the article is now well-sourced and has a consistent format throughout. I have no doubt that there are egregious first pass (first public draft) copy edit errors in those sections. Still, please take a look and if you think the article is ready for copy editors, if it should wait until I do more cleanup, or if major concerns still remain. just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a copyedit is needed, although most of the issues are minor typos, missing words or wikilinks, punctuation, and such.[12] @Hchc2009, Z1720, Serial Number 54129, and Aza24: I stopped after I realized I may be messing up the tenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Let me know when folks think the text and sources are up to FA standard and I'll happily give it a thorough review. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

FARC break

Hi Hchc2009, At this point, I think the sources should be pretty good. There's also more cleanup I'm working at (cleaning up residue of possible sockpuppeting, and cleaning up the "Background" section.) Also, I'll keep at the copy editing, which you had previously mentioned. Its not my strength and its a slow grind, but I'll keep at it to salvage the article. But my question for you, is when you glance at the article what are the major issues you'd still like to see addressed? If possible, I will do what I can to take care of them before you give it a more thorough review. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Z1720, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Serial Number 54129, and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding from your perspectives? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The number of footnotes is vastly excessive, failing the summary style requirement. Some sources such as Sackville-West, Victoria (1936). Saint Joan of Arc, Lowell, Francis Cabot (1896). Joan of Arc, Mackinnon, James (1902). The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy., etc., it's questionable if they are HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is too long for optimal readability and should be shortened to meet MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. There are 2,600 words in footnotes; that's an entire article. Wtfiv, how did this come to be ? I have to agree with the terms vastly excessive.

SandyGeorgia Regarding footnotes: I've removed most of the Latin quotes taken from Quicherat. (The Latin quotes were added to ensure that uncited quotes were verifiable. Many quotes originally in Latin were being cited as English-language citation without attribution. This may be related to socking. And even some of secondary source cites are questionable translations when compared to the Latin original.) I've reduced the citations. I also removed a miscelleny of other footnotes. Using LibreOffice to verify, there are now 36 footnotes with a wordcount of 1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for Joyce come in 54 for a wordcount of 1,920. (If there is a WP tool for word counting footnotes, please let me know). So, I'd suggest this is no longer excessive, but FAR can decide this. (Personally, I like the footnotes, as they amplify controversies and interesting but subsidary points without detracting from the text.)

I disagree on the lead length; MOS:LEAD provides guidelines which, of late, have been (mis)interpreted as strict rules at FAC, to the detriment of some leads. As one of many examples of misapplication of what the guideline actually says, Modussiccandi's lead at L. D. Reynolds came into FAC at a perfectly fine summary of the article, which was damaged at its FAC, based on a misread of what the guideline actually says. I think the length about right here. The more important aspects of MOS:LEAD are that we provide a concise overview that summarizes the body and entices the reader to continue; nowhere does MOS prescribe as an absolute only a certain number of paragraphs or words. The lead is going to be the only thing someone like me will be interested in and it gives me what I need to know. I do see some words that can be trimmed here and there, but leave that to the prose masters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sample: She was captured by Burgundians troops on 23 May and afterwards exchanged to the English. She was put on trial by the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, on a charge of heresy ... could lose the date and three sentences in a row starting with she and later is implied/redundant ... something like ... Burgundians troops captured her and exchanged her to the English; the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, had her tried for heresy. I'm not a wordsmith, but this gives me the idea that word trimming and redundancy reducing may be in order throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Back on the question of 2,600 words in footnotes, as one example, why isn't this footnote just a source with a note or quote attached ? What is the distinction here between footnotes and citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• She was a warrior, whose leadership helped restore the kingdom of France.
• SandyGeorgiaThe Piccolimini quote was footnoted because an indirect quote. I tend to footnote supporting quotes (e.g., opinions, letters, trial transcripts, and indirect quotes); I tend to reserve citation template post-scripts to quote foreign text, which I try to tie to a linkable source, and provide an accompanying and verifiable English translation. Wtfiv (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I will look in tomorrow; I can only look at generalities, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. Could someone bribe Ealdgyth to at least glance over this one? Like, offer her a prize Arabian horse or something ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand editors feeling a need for topic sentences, but sentences like this leave me cold:

• Joan remains a major cultural figure.

It says nothing, and means nothing, and why "remains"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of the also redundancy: for example:

• She is also a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

The also is unnecessary; a review throughout would be helpful, with an eye towards Graham and Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is off in this sentence in the lead, which could also be trimmed:

• In 1456, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III investigated the original trial, which was found to have been by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

  --> ?? --> Pope Callixtus III ordered an investigation in 1456, which determined the original trial was marred by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

All in all, as Wtfiv asked/indicated above, a copyedit by a new set of eyes is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a few sourcing bits here:

• " that she was secretly the half sister of King Charles VII" - is sourced to the original 1819 claim, which has been soundly rejected. (FWIW, Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc suggests the significance of this claim isn't that she was his sister, but that it would have made her a bastard child). A modern source should probably be used here, and if supportable by sources, the true significance of her being a bastard child should be mentioned.

The alternative historical interpretations also cites the 1819 Caze as its first case. But the Joan article citation is more verifiable. The page number links to a freely accessible source, and the quotation in French is also directly linked in the citation, and a translation is offered in the citation post-script. The reference links to the freely available book in Google Books as well. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unsure of the quality of "Russell, Preston (2014). Lights of Madness: In Search of Joan of Arc. Savannah, GA: Frederic C. Beil, Pub. ISBN 9781499040562. OCLC 1124448651." - Frederic C. Beil at least partially does something called "assisted self-publishing". What makes this high-quality RS if the publisher is dodgy?
• Egan is a master's thesis, what makes it pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• What makes famous-trials.com a high-quality RS?
• Shouldn't de Pizan be in primary sources, instead of the online refs?

I have not done source-text checks (which should be done, given the socking in the history), nor have I checked to make sure that more than a couple of the primary citations are appropriate. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe and Hog Farm; between your comments and mine (prose, plus sourcing, plus source-to-text integrity check on a long article), I am getting the impression that bringing this article over the line is going to require a sustained effort from a number of us (similar to the surprise we got at J. K. Rowling, where we found bigger issues once we dug in). Z1720? Am I overstating the case? If this is the case, what is the plan? My prose is not good enough to do the copyediting on an article in this content area of this scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that it depends on the results of the spot-checking. Of the sources I flagged, Caze (the 1819 bastard claim) is only used once; Russell 2014 is only used once, and for a historical backgroundstatement that should be easier to replace; Egan is only used once, and for a historical background statement; Linder is only referenced as a translation of the abjuration in a footnote in a spot that should probably be an EL instead of part of the footnote, so at least the one's I've flagged should be easily fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So depending on what Buidhe and Z1720 say, perhaps a spotcheck should be next, before attempting a copyedit? I'm concerned about that, as there are so many book sources. (I wish the Ealdgyth bribe had worked ... ) Am I correct that library access is needed to spotcheck here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia spot checking should be simple.

• I think every book citation links to a work that is freely available and verifiable. (Archive.org needs a registration).

• When possible, a page link is provided at each citation, so that the reader can just click it to verify.
• Just a note on citations. In addition, to showing consensus, multiple sources also provide differences of context and interpretation, which is fascinating to that very small percentage of readers who want to go deeper into the sources. Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable making sure the sources were right before fixing prose, since this article's socking history seems to go back some time. Hog Farm _Talk 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, fix the sourcing issues first and axe notes, then work on the prose. Issues are not insurmountable but they will require sustained effort to fix. (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, my editing on Wikipedia is much slower and more "catch as catch can". Though I'll continue to work on the article.

buidhe I don't know what HQRS means, but I think it has to do with old reliable sources? Here's some background. Because the primary source is stable, most points in the older works have not been superceded:

• Lowell's work remains a good detailed summry of even older data from the perspective of a legal scholar.
• Sackville-West's work is a classic, which is cited throughout the literature. Though it must be used carefully, she often makes the strongest points about Joan's role as a non-traditional woman. And Sackville-West dug deeply into the literature. Sproles 1996 provides a good summary.

More importantly, when I was working through the article, almost every statement I edited was challenged, so I wanted to make sure that each change could be verified and it wasn't the opinion of one source. Now that much of that issue has been resolved, I'm willing alter this. But the citations do solidify the article and challenge any future changes to the article to rely on cited sources. Please let me do what you suggest.

SandyGeorgia The footnotes are vast because when working with GBRV, I wanted to ensure that the quotes were exact as most changes were challenged. Each change was challenged, and I wanted to make sure they were justified and cited. (As you can gather, at one point after finishing the biography, I was exhausted with making the changes and just handed it to the challenging editor.) But now, a great many can easily be removed.

The sourcing bits seem fairly minor.

• Pizan can be moved to a primary source, though it is second-hand.
• I added Egan when I found it in my research. I have no issues about citing a well-sourced thesis. I like to lead readers to such articles. But it can certainly go.
• Preston Russell was an artifact of an earlier article (and the previous "Visions" section had an unattributed quote from him, too.) I didn't have the heart to remove Russell, given he recently died in the last two years. The book seemed informal but interesting and had citations. The publisher is a minor one, the citation is a minor one too. And it could certainly go if that's the consensus.
• Famous-trials.com just cites documents. I used it because it seemed to translate things accurately based on my research and is easily accessed. I may be able to find the documents elsewhere in the depths of archive.org, but it was convenient.

Hog Farm I'd really appreciate somebody source checks! I have no doubt I've made errors along the way. I've caught and fixed a few myself, as I often click them repeatedly when editing. I do think, however, that the majority of errors made are minor. I'd appreciate those being addressed, since almost all are linked and I'd like them to be appropriate.

• I cited Caze verbatim to ensure the claim was right. I'm not big on the revisionist history section at all, but if we keep it, I want it to be verifiable. Wtfiv (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to address why this article is where it is with so many footnotes (with exact quotes) and citations. Sandy and Hogfarm have gotten to the key of why this article is where it is. When I started, I was wondering why it was semi-protected. Then I've encountered my first deep-sock work in this article. My work has been an attempt to thoroughly vacuum out the socking. Unfortunately, even as I was working on the article, I had to thoroughly support each edit for an editor who seemed committed to the sock version. Every change had to be supported by multiple authors to ensure they wouldn't be softly reverted. (For example, the overly long footnote on Charles VII attempt to save Joan, when the overwhelming consensus is that no effort was taken.) I think I've scoured out the vast majority of socking related material. However, you can see that I did keep the points made via the socking if there were reliable sources to back it up. Usually this was done in the context of presenting it as one opinion amidst others. (e.g., the cross-dressing section). Though I'm not the best copy-editor, I went through each source and tried to verify it. Keep in mind that this socking may occur again. Having solid verifiable sources, and requiring them for new edits, seems to be the best tool for challenging future attempts, which seem decades old and will probably return again.

This has started me on a secondary project. Although it is not directly related to the Joan of Arc article, I've been also working on Joan of Arc related articles (e.g., Trial of Joan of Arc,Retrial of Joan of Arc, Pierre Cauchon,Canonization of Joan of Arc). Most of the issues are related to content brought up in the investigations. Whether direct or not, much of the information is close to verbatim from same few articles and websites that are associated the sock-puppet investigations. Interestingly, these verbatim sources sometimes have English-language quotes with quotations marks for difficult to access sources in French.

Frankly, this one has been a tougher haul than I expected given the complexities of the socking, but its been educational too! As always, my posts are far too long, but that said, I'm willing to continue to help out with this article as the FARC sees fit. Just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Feeling badly that you had to go through this :( All things considered, we probably should keep the footnotes, as the sock is persistent. Maybe just chip away at the prose for now? I'm socked in trying to wrap up some difficult issues at another FAR for at least a few more days, and always have my own list of socks trying to make my editing here a miserable experience :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The image caption's ref says "It is not impossible that this miniature comes from the collection of Georges Spetz" — but the image caption itself says "most likely an art forgery by the Alsatian painter Georges Spetz" — how is this an equivalent interpretation? Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 Good call! I'm not sure if the footnote translation helped catch it, but that's why I like everything being verifiable. I'll remove mention of Spetz. Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

=Editing summary with respect to FAR concerns to date.

In Talk:Joan of Arc 25 July 2021, User:Z1720 raised the following concerns. This is how they've been addressed:

• There are citation needed tags from 2017 (Done: Most statements are cited. Almost all citations have live links, and are verifiable.
• Many Sources may not reliable. (Done: Almost all sources are WP:RS. Many, many have been added. A small number of these have been questioned by reviewers. I'm comfortable with them, but editors can remove them or others. Potential sockpuppet sites had already been addressed, and were trivial to remove.)
• References need to be standardised. (Done: all references are sfn)
• Sources in the "Further reading" section need to be evaluated, incorporated, or deleted. (Now: Done- no further reading, all have been incorporated or deleted.)
• "See also" section is bloated and needs to be trimmed. (Done: See also has been deleted)
• There's no legacy section; see also could be incorporated (Done: Legacy section added.)

User: Sinking into reality noted in the same section above:

• Used French sources, not English (Addressed: There are still a small handful of French sources when English source is not available, but they are linked and verifiable. A translation of text is provided.)
• Reduce reliance on Pernoud. (Done: Pernoud's three books are still major resources, but the article no longer relies on it.)

In the delist discussion above, User:Hchc2009 mentions issues with:

• Primary sources (Done: the citations do not use primary sources. These have been moved to footnotes when used.)
• Original research (Done: there was a bit of this due to the sockpuppet issue, these have been removed and statements now have verifiable citations.)

Other issues:

• Questions about the lead. (Addressed: It try's to summarize the article. Thank you User:SandyGeorgia for suggesting the lead appears adequate, and for your suggestions.]]
• Questions about the number of sources. (Addressed. This article, and other Joan-related articles has misrepresented through unverifiable sourcing. Now nearly every statement has a citation, and often multiples. Everyone of these had been worked through by me, except for a couple by User:GBRV, which I verified after they were added.
• Footnote length (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920
• Sock puppet issues. (Addressed: I think almost all have been caught by using verifiable references.)

• Unverified claims and original research has been removed.
• I've kept a number of points advocated by the sock puppet if WP:RS also support the point. But the points have usually been reduced to one perspective among others. Sock puppet sources are not used. (The three sources questioned are not part of sock puppet investigation. As mentioned, they can be removed.)

From my understanding, the remaining issues raised are trimming and copyediting. (Ongoing: trimming and copyediting will continue for a while.)

Otherwise, I'm thinking the major concerns that triggered the FAR have been addressed? (Though, there is always more for editors to do!) Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)