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

Original Stories from Real Life

Notified: WikiProject Books, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2021-03-02, 2022-05-11

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about uncited text and original research. SandyGeorgia raised these issues on the article's talk page in March 2021, and the concerns have not been resolved. The original FAC nominator is deceased so I will not leave a notice on their talk page, and xtools says there are not other major contributors yet. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery

Notified: Johnbod, Z1720,Bishonen, Buidhe, Fannybriceii, Giano, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women in Green, 2022-03-23, 2022-04-28

I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see one - I can't see "several". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well ... that's after I spent an hour excising a few, and I'm less than halfway through the McKinstry cites; if you've already found one I missed, fair enough. I have two others of the books used in the references on order from my local library.

But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [1] [2] [3] [4] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to "Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates." Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [5] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have spent the last couple of hours restoring a little of the information which has been wrongly removed by Ravenswing. I own all the books mentioned in the references, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours reverting all his edits. There is nothing in the original page which isn't sourced or able to be sourced, but if Ravenswing doesn't stop his vandalism there will be little left to read. Perhaps that's his intention? This is a very strange nomination. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

You really do seem to have an ownership problem with this article, don't you? First it's accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny on the talk page, and now this. The changes I made in the article were removing statements unsourced by the listed citations, or ones that were uncited in the first place. You should have spent the time to do your work properly in the first place for a FA article; if you claim you lack the time now to clean up your own errors, well, you're the best judge of your own time. But the sheer hysteria you're displaying (a byte count shows that I removed less than a twentieth of the content) is unbecoming. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Grand Coulee Dam

Notified: NortyNort, Wehwalt, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Cascadia, WikiProject Dams, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm brought up issues with updating and potential undue weight on Guthrie (I'd prefer an "in culture" prose section, if warranted by RS coverage). Another issue that I noticed is that while the article mentions displacement and compensation to Colville Indians, it doesn't say that these people were never even consulted before the dam was built. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been to the dam and its visitor center and they have part of the exhibit dedicated to Guthrie and his album on the Columbia. If there are other cultural references a broader section would be fine bit I don't really see an undue weight issue since he had an important role in publicizing the project. This page of Currents and Undercurrents: An Administrative History of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area has info about land purchase from the Colville, but I didn't find an affirmative statement about the lack of consultation. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Bobby Eaton

Notified: User talk:Ldblsatin, User talk:Renamed user a2vv12zt2i, User talk:JimHolden, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Professional wrestling, talk page notice 2021-06-02

I am nominating this featured article for review because those issues that Hog Farm brought were still not addressed yet. Notes: "Looking at this as part of the ongoing sweeps of older FAs, and I'm seeing some issues here. The material about going missing is uncited/failed verification and should definitely be cited per WP:BLP as possibly controversial. I'm not even sure if it truly warrants a mention. Wrestling-titles is listed at WP:PW/RS as "unproven", does this source meet the high-quality RS requirement for FA? Wrestlingfigs.com is cited at one point (publisher not in citation, its the "Here is a statement from Bobby Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published book cited (the CreateSpace one, CS is a self-publisher). It appears that Archeus Communications has only published books by Gary Will and I can find basically nothing about it online, which makes me wonder if there's really much editorial oversight going on with that source. A number of the book sources also lack page numbers, which is needed for verification. This needs significant work, and a featured article review may be necessary". There are also several unsourced statements. BloatedBun (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

What should be stated to be fair to the article is that a defense of the Will source was posted below my notice, and the linked RSN discussion indicates that it is a respected source. So it's a bit unfair to list the whole notice without noting that one of the sources has been strongly defended. My concerns about the various websites remain. Some issues still remain, but with Will & Duncan defensible, it is not in as bad of shape as had first appeared. Hog Farm _Talk 14:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

And why wasn't McPhail notified? They're still active and are responsible for over 10% of the article's content according to the authorship tool. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for boldly sending this article to FAR and not being specific. Besides the sourcing, there are several unsourced statements. If this is all resolved, feel free to make your own decisions. BloatedBun (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The CreateSpace source meets the criteria for SPS. Mark James is an expert in the field, as noted in this article: [6]. This comes from Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) and explains some of his history in the business, including co-authoring autobiographies of Jerry Jarrett, Dutch Mantel, and Bill Dundee, as well as appearing as an expert on multiple series and documentaries, including WWE's Most Wanted Treasures on A&E. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

So with Duncan/Will OK and James defensible, then it's just the web sources that need checked for reliability? The main content looks like it's in decent shape. Hog Farm _Talk 23:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the Kayfabe Memories sources. Most of it was replaced with PWInsider, which WP:PW lists as a reliable source. The specific author is Mike Johnson, who Bob Kapur of Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) calls "one of the most credible internet wrestling reporters in the world" ([7]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Also replaced WrestlingFigs source. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Haven't reviewed fully but there is a need to add citations, I have used cn templates to indicate where. starship.paint (exalt) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Finnish Civil War

Notified: User talk:Ldblsatin (no other significant contributors), WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Finland, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Politics, talk page notice 2021-02-25

I am nominating this featured article for review because issues identified with this article include:

1. Verifiability: citation style doesn't allow easy verification of information, text–source integrity needs improvement
2. Sourcing: some sources cited need to be replaced (see Ljleppan's comments on talk)
3. Length: At 12,000 words, the article would benefit from more summary style
4. Coverage: Ljleppan has brought up some topics that should be touched on in the article (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

James Robert Baker

Notified: WP Bio, WP LGBT studies, WP Anarchism, WP Calif, talk page notice 2022-04-16

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, and its only main editor has been deceased for years. The main issues raised on talk are reliability and quality of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Having done a very, very brief skim, and notwithstanding the sources being replaced with others that may be stronger, there are definitely some bare citations that don't provide enough information to fully identify the source that we should improve. As of the current revision the most egregious examples are citations 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, and 28. There's also one CS1 maintenance message that needs resolving

We've also got some inconsistent mixing between CS1 and 2 going on, so we probably should chose now which cite style to use.

I'm happy to tackle the bare citations and the CS1 maintenance issues sometime tomorrow if there are no objections, and no-one else gets there first? I'll also do a check for dead URLs and ensure archiving as well when doing so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sideswipe9th you might want to check whether the article can be reliably sourced before putting a lot of work in to it. It had a well attended FAC, with Supports from reputable reviewers, but you can see on talk that I came along in December 2006 and objected that the referencing was not up to snuff even when it passed FAC. Then Jeff died, and things got left in poor shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look for stronger sources while doing the above, but I think even clarifying some of the existing sources by providing ISBN/OCLC identifiers will help us for access and assessment of them. Some are just bare <ref></ref> tags, which I've been generally cleaning up on other articles anyway so filling these in isn't much hassle. And of course the same applies for any dead URLs that are missing archiving, but archive URLs do exist on Wayback Machine or archive.today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any bare URLs ??? I looked at those you mention above (10, 15, 16, etc), and they are also complete citations ... sources are not required to be online, so URLs aren't needed. I'm confused about what you plan to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Bare references, not bare URLs. Let me give you an example which should make it clearer what I intend. Here's reference 28, without processing: <ref name="Scott">Bressart, Scott. ''Anarchy'', Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255</ref>. When rendered, this displays as: Bressart, Scott. Anarchy, Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255. It's OK, we have a title, author name (which I'll come back to), publisher name, year, and page range. But we can do better! From the citation alone, we don't know if we're looking at a book, book review, research paper, or something else. Putting "Anarchy" Scott Bressart into Google only returns results for this page, or some derivatives of it (ie sites that scrape Wikipedia). We can gleam the missing information from the text of the article, but when we do so we discover that the citation is incorrect. Anarchy is a book, written by both James Robert Baker and Scott Bressart.

So what I normally do in situations like this is to wrap that citation up in either a Citation Style 1 or Citation Style 2 template. I like to make each citation as clear as possible, so that in the best case, when someone comes to read the article either they only need to click a URL for citations to websites, or enter an ISBN or OCLC identifier into WorldCat or their local library to find a copy of the source we're referencing In this case, the reference would become <ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy |last1=Baker |first1=James Robert |last2=Bressart |first2=Scott |publisher=[[Alyson Books|Alyson Publications]] |isbn=9781555837433 |oclc=49297209 |pages=251-255 |year=2004}}</ref>. This then gets displayed as Baker, James Robert; Bressart, Scott (2004). Anarchy. Alyson Publications. pp. 251-255. ISBN 9781555837433. OCLC 49297209. Now we're giving the reader of the article a lot more information about the citation. We've corrected the dual author issue, and we've given them the information (ISBN/OCLC identifiers) to easily find this book on WorldCat, their local library catalogue, or in a book shop.

Now to address the URLs, you're correct that there aren't any bare URLs in the article. However we do have URL citations without archiving; 4, 6. We also have URL based citations that haven't been checked to see if they are still live since 2006; 1, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23 (which has other problems), 25, 26, 27. Or since 2016; 3, 5, 18. So concurrently, while filling in the bare citations as I've hopefully explained more clearly above, I will also check all the separate URL based citations to find out which ones are still live, and which ones are now dead. Where a citation is dead, as long as it's using a CS1 or CS2 template, all I need to do is to change the |urlstatus= parameter from live to dead, and then the reader will automatically be directed to the archived URL instead of the now dead URL. For example I've just checked whether citation 1 is a live or dead URL. It's a dead URL. At the moment, citation 1 renders as "Robertson's official Baker Website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2006. If you click on the first link, you're sent to a blank page. However as soon as I change the urlstatus parameter, and adjust the retrieved date to today (because I've just checked it), it will render as "Robertson's official Baker website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2022. Now the first link is swapped for the archive version, and when the reader clicks on it they get to see the content that was being used to support the article text.

Hopefully this helps, but if not I'm happy to try and explain another way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, gotcha ... but just to be clear for future reference, templated citations are not a requirement, and many MANY editors prefer manual citations because of the huge and long-standing recurring issues with citation templates. If you want to do the work of converting to citation templates, while also adding additional information and archive links, that is cool, and there is no one around who is likely to object to converting to templates (as I would be the only person previously involved with the article who might do that :), but for other situations, you would need consensus before converting manual citations to citation templates. For this one, have at it ... I'm happy to see Jeffpw's work saved, as he turned in to a dear friend before his tragic passing (ie, I have a bit of a COI on this article, as I'd very much like to see Jeffpw's work saved if it can be). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, it's why I asked if there was any objections before embarking upon these changes. I know sometimes it can be a contentious issue, so unless I'm doing it for maintenance purposes; like filing in a bare URL, I'll generally ask before doing any such changes.

That discussion makes for some interesting reading, not sure how I missed that back in January, unless I was still recovering from Christmas. I'll be interested to see if Template:Cite Q ever gets off the ground properly, and all the underlying citation information moves to Wikidata. It would make re-use of citations across multiple articles much easier to maintain, as you'd only have to update the citation (eg if a URL becomes dead) in one place to have that change replicate to all articles that make use of it. But that is perhaps a discussion for another time and place!

Back on topic of this article, I'll have to admit my unfamiliarity with the works of the subject. I'm only here because I saw one of your WikiProject notices and figured if I can get in early this time, maybe I can help more! From what I've read so far, I'm optimistic that we can keep this as an FA. I'd be particularly interested to see if there are any citations on Baker and his work more recent than the 2004-6 citations that currently make up the bulk of the article, and if the three books and two screenplays mentioned at the end of the legacy section have been published in any form since that was last updated circa 2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Citation cleanup done. I identified a few problems that I couldn't address which I'll list in a subsection below. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations for discussion

The following is a list of citations that require discussion to address some issues. Citation numbers are per this revision.

1 - What Title should we use here? While the domain name was Baker's full name, the operator of the site, at the time of archiving appeared to be Ron Robertson. Can we clarify this title in any way? The URL itself was just a link to the main page on that website, so there's no other obvious title to chose from amongst the text.

2 - This citation doesn't actually mention Baker in any way. Is it being used to support the description of beatniks? Is this citation needed?

6 - This citation is a link to a specific book (Testosterone) on Amazon. Even in the archived version it is a link to that book. While it does support the text, I'm sure there must be a better version available somewhere. Note: There was a better source available, I've replace this now with a piece in The Austin Chronicle.

8 - This citation links to Variety's search engine. However from the state of the citation prior to my cleanup I believe the intent was to link to Baker's obituary from 1997. I've changed the URL to that obituary, but wanted to note it here in case I was mistaken.

15 - This was an ambiguous citation previously. I was not able to find any information on a publication called "Book World", however a review by the same name and from the same author was published in The Washington Post in 1993. As it seems to support the claims used, I've swapped it to the Washington Post version for clarity.

19 - Prior to my cleanup this citation had See Also text, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here. Note: dug through the history, discovered it was part of a citation bundle which previously included the review from 3AM Magazine, which is now citation 7.

22 - Has a see also text, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it. What was on page 65, of the September 11, 2000 issue of Publishers Weekly? Note: Request for a copy of this, plus additional information so we can improve this citation filed at REREQ. Another note REREQ has saved us again! Updating the source now with a link to the paywalled archived version.

23 - Alibris citation only links to the (former) front page of that website. In the archive version this does not make any mention of Baker's works. This is also true for the Biblio website, though that website is still live. This use of these sources seems rather like original research to me, is there a source we can actually use here? Note: I can't find any reliable sources that assert this, however I can find that a first edition of Boy Wonder is currently on sale for US$285. Unfortunately this looks like original research, so excising it may be best.

24 - No page number available, don't know the author's full name. I'm unable to find any archived copies of this online. Is there anywhere we can source this from? Do we know anyone in Australia, who has library access, and stores the Herald Sun in its microfilm archives? Note: After a request at WP:REREQ, a copy of this text was supplied, and I've added as much information from it as was relevant.

26 - While the source text is positive about Boy Wonder, it seems to be a review of only one person. Even in conjunction with citation 25, I'm not sure how this demonstrates Boy Wonder to be Baker's "magnum opus". Do we have any stronger/other sources for this claim? Note: As with source 23, I cannot find any reliable sources that can corroborate this beyond the opinions of an individual reviewer. At least one other reviewer on Amazon considers Fuel-Injected Dreams to be Baker's magnum opus, so this too looks like OR and should probably be removed/changed in some way.

That covers all the issues I ran into when doing the cleanup, and couldn't resolve at the time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Without Jeffpw, I doubt if anyone has these answers; we shall see. This is why I feared the article might not be saveable ... Jeffpw is really the only editor who worked on the article ... all others who contributed (like me) were only doing cleanup and maintenance ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Still early days yet, we've only been open 24 hours so more people may come along. And worst case, I like to think of these as notes/prompts to bust out some Google-fu when I'm not quite so tired! The only one I'm pretty non-confident on finding more information about is #24, just because of it needing somewhat esoteric source access, on a continent far far away. But we may get lucky if we go through WP:WRE. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Been busy the last couple of days on an RfC closure, so only getting around to looking at this list in more detail now.

Source 24. I've so far been able to establish that there are no copies of it online. The Herald Sun website does not have archives of articles that old, and none of the newspaper archive websites available through LIB have it in their collections. The State Library Victoria, in Melbourne says they have it in their microfilm archive though. So I've filed a request at REREQ, with as much information as I can, in the hopes that some editor local to that library can find the piece.

I'll try and set aside the time to dig deeper into the other sources over the next day or so. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Good news on source 24! REREQ have found a copy. I'm not quite sure what to make of it as a whole, aside from a throwaway reference to Tim and Pete, it does say that at the time of writing (August 1995), an "autographed hard cover first edition" of Fuel-Injected Dreams cost the author $75. As this the purchase was from a book shop in San Francisco, the currency appears to be US dollars and not Australian dollars. I'll hopefully add the relevant quote to the citation, just as soon as I can check whether or not that would be a copyvio. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Quotation added to source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Kudos for your work, Sideswipe9th; please ping me when I should have a fresh look, as real life is kicking my arse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Will do @SandyGeorgia:. I hope things start to ease up for you soon! Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion on the following with respect to these citations please @SandyGeorgia::

• 1 - How should we title Baker's website? At present we call it "Robertson's official Baker website", but that seems overly verbose.
• 2 - Citation 2 is currently being used to support the following sentence Rebelling against his parents, he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks (anyone living as a bohemian, acting rebelliously, or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners), artists and gays alongside citation 1. As far as I can tell, it's to support the description/definition of beatniks. Do we actually need a citation supporting the definition, or can we get away with just the wikilink?
• 23 - I'm fairly certain this is original research, and I've been unable to find any supporting citations from secondary sources on this. This citation is being used to support the sentence By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book stores. alongside citation 24. While 24 does mention the price the author of the piece paid for Fuel-Injected Dreams, it does not remark upon whether or not that is considered a "high price". I think we may need to remove this sentence?
• 26 - Alongside citation 25, this is being used to support the text Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book. Unfortunately this seems to be the opinion of a single reviewer and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that support this claim. I've also found at least one review on Amazon that says Fuel-Injected Dreams is Baker's magnum opus. As with citation 23, I'm fairly certain this is original research and as such I think we may need to remove this sentence? Unless you know of a source that ranks books by their popularity?

That's about it for the problematic citations. There's one REREQ request I've just filed and hopefully I'll get a hit back on. Aside from that, I think we may need to now progress on to looking at the text on a per section basis? I was able to find one source that was published in 2017, so I'm hopeful that we can find other sources more recent than circa 2000-2006. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wire

Notified: Andrew Levine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject LGBT studies, 2021-04-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are full sections, as well as multiple sentences, that are uncited. The critical response section is also very disorganised and needs to be trimmed. IMDB and Amazon are also used as references and should probably be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not super familiar with The Wire, so I don't feel comfortable researching and rewriting the whole article, but one section that should be easy to fix is Awards. The main article for that section is an FL, so there should be plenty of sources there to improve that section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Just a quick general note that I will offer. The article should be restructured to follow MOS:TV's section order, (ie cast and episode info above production), and I would greatly reduce the season summaries per WP:TVPLOT or just remove them entirely since there's already a list of episode and season articles, just leaving the overview table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC The above offers great starting points for improvements, but no significant edits have been made yet. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC as noted above, there are issues that need addressed here, and there have not been significant fixes to the article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, ideas, but no work yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Dmitri Shostakovich

Notified: Henry Flower, CurryTime7-24, Wikiproject Composers, talk page notice 2022-01-28

In late January, I brought up the article's problems at its talk page. It was last reviewed in 2007 and is unfortunately the poorest quality of all composer FAs. Sourcing is the most critical issue. Some pages are missing, and there are multiple CN tags present, though there should be far more. Some paragraphs rely on a single inline citation; the entire "Recorded legacy" section is an example. The article lacks enormous amounts of information available both in print and online. The "Early career" and "Later life, and death" sections both display elements of "list of events" rather than prose. They are also dull and monotone. Thank you and good luck to anyone who is willing and able to keep this FA. Wretchskull (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Wretchskull above, and also the English is often unacceptable shoddy, e.g. "Even before the postwar Stalinist anti-Semitic campaigns, Shostakovich showed an interest in Jewish themes", and "Thereafter, Shostakovich would celebrate the date of his symphonic debut for the rest of his life." The 'Music' section is painfully thin to the point of transparency. But where and how to begin reconstruction?--Smerus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the biography is largely salvageable with some care and a few more citations. I'm concerned that the music section would need a complete rewrite. There seems to be three approaches to music sections on WP, those considered with genres, those with style and those with chronology. The style group works best when composers stuck to a single or few mediums/genres, like in Chopin or Mahler. The genre approach works well with diverse oeuvres (Berlioz, Ravel), and the chronological approach can be used in similar situations effectively (Debussy, Holst). Currently Shostakovich is using a poorly written stylistic approach, which I don't think works well, and either the genre or chronological one would be considerably more effective. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to realize that the lead is like, really bad... Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    Yes but the thing is there's not much point rejigging the lead until the article has been rewritten. The lead presently contains much text which is not validated by the article, and contains a host of citations referring to matters not covered in the article - as well as contradicting itself (e.g. "Long dismissed by Western scholars"/" throughout his life was regarded as one of the major composers of the 20th century".) Really all a bit of a mess. The article should certianly be stripped of FA status at present.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

    Tbf I added the "Long dismissed by Western scholars", only because Grove says "For many years, serious scholars in the West had scarcely bothered with Shostakovich", but the situation is impossible to explain properly without a well-researched reputation section to pull from (and the one at the moment is not ideal). Aza24 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• CurryTime7-24 has made some edits to the article. Are they hoping to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  When time permits, yes. I do what I can in the moments available to me to improve this article and other Shostakovich-related articles. I will add that as perhaps the editor who has worked on this article the most in the past few months, Smerus' gripes about my contributions being among those whose "English is often unacceptable [sic?] shoddy" is incredibly discouraging. I don't purport to be the second coming of William Strunk Jr here or anything, guy, but to me matters of prose style are secondary to the slips, errors, personal speculations, and outright falsifications that passed for "facts" here prior to my involvement. Moreover, I think in the few exchanges we have ever shared, I've been unfailingly polite and encouraging to you. Yes, much more work remains to be done, but I'm not a retiree with vast amounts of free time at their disposal. So rather than complain about other's hard work, please do feel free to grab a shovel, so to speak, and help out. Thanks. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC just to keep the process going; it looks unlikely that this article can be brought to standard, but should a monumental effort occur, it can still be saving during the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies CurryTime7-24, I did not realize that some of the contributions I criticised were from you - I thought they were accrued over the ages, and no personal affront was intended. You have absolutely correctly hit on the shortcomings of range and fact in the article. The prose quality of course is also an important component of FA. I am indeed a retiree, but with no vast amounts of free time at my disposal alas due to all sorts of commitments (so I'm not the only one to make assumptions), but I will do my best with you over the forthcoming period to polish the article up. --Smerus (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Notified: GabeMc, Burrobert, Popcornfud, WikiProject Pink Floyd, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject Music, WikiProject United Kingdom, April 2022

Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• The activism section should be rewritten. As you mentioned it is a list of disconnected events. Activism is a large part of his life now. However, it is rare for our green-tick sources to report on his (or anyone else's) left-wing activism because of the nature of those sources. Btw, there are warnings on Water's talk page stating that editors on the page must have over 500 edits and are restricted to two reverts per 24 hours. The editor who reverted your changes broke both rules. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed that the activism coverage isn't up to snuff. Popcornfud (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed (t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. The activism section needs to be seriously trimmed. Also, I don't know why a bio article has the "Live band members" section and I think it can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Don't move to FARC, fix the article. Can somebody tell me exactly what's wrong with the "Activism" section? I've gone through and trimmed it down and removed anything that was either questionably sourced (don't cite Fox News in an FA - jeez) or just unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Ritchie, that's definitely a big improvement but concerns remain:

  • 2022 tour not mentioned in the article, this and other updating issues seem to still be present
  • A longish further reading section raises suspicions that article may not be well-researched as required by the FA criteria. Ideally these works are either cited if relevant, or removed if not.

  SandyGeorgia, Burrobert for their opinion. (t · c) buidhe 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  The "big four" of Blake, Mabbett, Povey and Schaffner are being used as cites, which (IMHO) tends to cancel out any biases of a single author, while "Further Reading" contains entries that probably duplicate or don't add on any of the information in the existing sources and could probably be trimmed. For example, there's not much point citing Andy Mabbett's books from 1994-95 when one from 2010 contains the same information, with corrections. I'll have to do an audit of them. In my view, a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" can mean "this source doesn't tell us anything new and isn't as recent or well-respected as the others, so there's not much value citing from it". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  If "this source doesn't tell us anything new", it shouldn't be listed in further reading. (t · c) buidhe 15:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. I'll obviously leave the decisions to others, but be aware that The Visual Documentary covers Waters' solo career in more depth - and with more images - than The Music and the Mystery. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: apparently, trimming activism meant removing all mention of his controversial views on Venezuela. Odd, that; perhaps reduce paragraphs to one-sentence summaries instead. I suspect this article will be mired in POV for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Is this really covered much in high-quality sources? AFAICT, Waters' activism tends to be covered similarly to Rowling's political stances, often by lower quality sources so it's hard to judge due weight. (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Contrasting the approach taken to Rowling demonstrates the problems in sorting the POV in the activism section ... for example, we have Huffington Post as a source ... entire paragraphs on some issues, no mention of others ... what is the criteria for inclusion here? It's certainly not sourcing with things like HuffPost included, while Clarín (Argentine newspaper) is discarded. Also, I hope the prose in the Activism section is not representative of the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The trouble is, most of the best Pink Floyd / Waters sources are at least ten years old, and while there are a few more recent books, they concentrate on the music. So we have to look elsewhere. I basically took out anything that didn't obviously seem to be an acceptable source, including several that I think would not pass muster at WP:RSN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We have/had the same situation at Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography, and those written are 20 years old. We opted for a very tight summary of Politics of J. K. Rowling, but I don't believe we completely deleted anything covered in reputable broadsheet sources. This article could similarly benefit from starting over with how the Activism section was worked by, a) establishing Politics of Roger Waters, then b) tightly summarizing the issues back to the main article, c) with cleaner prose and less quoting than what is there now, and d) without using sources like Huffington Post, e) and without eliminating sources like The Guardian and Clarin that cover his views on Venezuela. Roger Waters has vocally advocated controversial and unpopular stances in many areas; that warrants an adequate summary from a sub-article, rather than eliminating some of those views. At 5,000 words, this article does not have the WP:SIZE constaints that Rowling has, so it should not be as difficult to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Supernova

Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06

Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.

Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)

My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm _Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm _Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu ^talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

90377 Sedna

Notified: DarkHorizon, Serendipodous, Kheider, Nrco0e, Kwamikagami, Eurocommuter, Ruslik0, JorisvS, WolfmanSF, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-04-03

I am nominating this article for review because this 2010 featured article is not up to standards anymore. The problem is mainly with FA criteria 1b and 1c ("comprehensive" and "well researched").

The vast majority of the article is between 12 and 14 years old, which is an eternity, both in astronomy and in Wikipedia history. Our understanding of Trans-Neptunian Objects in general has evolved a lot. To give just one example, most of the "classification" section was written in 2008, and some of it is obviously outdated. For instance, the sentence "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" (introduced in this edit on 16 February 2008) is wrong since 2012 VP113 was announced in 2014. While some errors like this are easy to correct individually, they are a symptom of the article's overall lack of maintenance, accumulated over the past decade. I raised the issue on the article talk page a month ago, but got zero responses.

A minor issue I have raised in my most recent post on the article talk page is the lack of a section dedicated to observations, see Talk:90377_Sedna#No_"observations"_section? Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to add: Following my last FAR nomination, which went over my head, I was uncertain about whether to raise this issue at all. I decided to go ahead, but I don't know how much I can contribute. I do have some expertise about the subject (more so than for the topic of the last FAR), which I am willing to offer, but I invite the users I notified to assist, if they can. Renerpho (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One more thing - I have not corrected the issue mentioned above ("no other objects have yet been discovered...") because, even though I assume that this may be an easy one to correct, I was waiting for input on the talk page, which there wasn't. I didn't know how to correct it a month ago and I don't know now. Renerpho (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Close without FARC. I'm not so convinced by the nominator's argument. Looking at the article, it seems like it's in pretty good shape. We haven't learned a whole lot of new things about Sedna since it was promoted to FAC in 2010. The biggest developments have been the discovery of a few other similar objects as well as Sedna's relation to the Planet Nine hypothesis, both of which are already included in the article. The statement "no other objects have yet been discovered in its vicinity" is in relation to Sedna's specific orbit with regard to whether it could be considered a planet, not with regard to other similar objects in general. That seems like a fair statement given that the other similar objects are not really in Sedna's vicinity, at least not compared to Pluto and its nearby KBOs. Some of the observations of Sedna after its discovery are already mentioned in the physical characteristics section when such observations were responsible for the discovery of new information about Sedna. I don't think it's really necessary to include other post-discovery observations that didn't help us learn more about Sedna. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Concern - the thing that sticks out to me is that the article isn't quite sure what 90377 Sedna is. The first sentence of the article states directly "Sedna (minor-planet designation 90377 Sedna) is a dwarf planet " but the classification section states that the official classification body considers it to be a "scattered object", but also says that some consider it a new class of object, and that it is also expected to meet the requirements to be a dwarf planet and that some have called it such. So the lead calls it a dwarf planet but the article body suggests that there's much disagreement about classification? Additionally, "Such a mission could be facilitated by Dual-Stage 4-Grid ion thrusters that might cut cruise times considerably if powered, for example, by a fusion reactor" looks like original research, unless the source specifically discusses a mission to Sedna; this is sending off strong original research warning signs because the "such a mission" referred to was proposed in 2018, while the source for that sentence is from 2009 so it's clearly not directly referring to the proposed mission. Hog Farm _Talk 17:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It's both a "dwarf planet" and a "scattered disc object", the same way Pluto is both a "dwarf planet" and a "Kuiper Belt object", but "dwarf planet" is clearly the primary classification in both cases. "Dwarf planet" is what it is, and "scattered disc object" is where it is. However, based on where it is, it's not really clear it should be considered a "scattered disc object" and might be better considered an "inner Oort Cloud object". There is no concretely accepted answer, and that is discussed in the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • One correction: It looks like the Minor Planet Center doesn't list Sedna as a "scattered disc object" anymore. Still, I don't think there is so much to change because the article already presented that it wasn't really a scattered disc object. Sportsfan77777 (talk)
      • Any idea where to find what (if anything) the MPC classifies Sedna as these days? @XOR'easter:? This looks fairly easily savable to my layman's eyes, so hopefully we can get this one pushed over the line. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

      As far as I can tell, they just list it as a transneptunian object [8]. XOR'easter (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

      • Sedna was listed as a SDO at [9], but this is no longer the case. Renerpho (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no official proposed mission. They are both talking about it hypothetically, albeit separately. You could go with "This type of mission" instead of "Such a mission" to better separate the two? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I think this would probably be an improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Renerpho Thanks for the comments, which sound encouraging so far. Below are some points, with details of where the article may no longer be in line with recent results. I'm sorry I didn't put these into the original nomination, but I have not yet been able to fully review the article. If someone with expertise in the topic could help with adding points that are outdated, I'd appreciate it! The points below are mostly about the "classification" section.

• As noted, the classification isn't straight-forward (for example, the dwarf planet classification is at odds with the "official" IAU status, compare Talk:90377_Sedna#Sedna_is_not_a_dwarf_planet_according_to_the_IAU). I think there is room for improvement when it comes to how Wikipedia handles these cases in general, but so far, the Sedna article seems to be in line with what we do elsewhere. No action about this is needed in the Sedna article, as far as I am concerned.
• Johnston's Archive, which is used in some similar articles ((589683) 2010 RF43, for example) classifies Sedna simply as a sednoid.[10] Should we add that as an additional source?
• Regarding the lack of objects in Sedna's vicinity, I think the claim at least requires a reference that says what it actually means. I am uncomfortable with solely relying on your (reasonable) interpretation, Sportsfan77777, especially since the sentence was added when my interpretation would have been purely hypothetical.
• Caltech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Brown have hypothesised the existence of a giant planet in the outer Solar System, nicknamed Planet Nine. - The numbers in that section (mass, orbital period) don't reflect the latest results by Batygin&Brown, compare the Planet Nine article. Should we update this?
• To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case. - The reference for this is (Brown, 2008), which is fairly old, and determining whether something is in hydrostatic equilibrium was thought to be easier at the time. Brown's "dwarf planet census" seems to have fallen out of favour recently, because it is no longer in line with scientific consensus. See Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_there_some_reason_why_we_still_keep_Brown's_values? for a discussion. It turns out that this is complicated (for a recent related discussion of the possible shortfalls of what "hydrostatic equilibrium" means, see Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_the_Moon_in_hydrostatic_equilibrium?). An additional problem is that the size at which an object is expected to be in HE depends on its composition. In 2019, Grundy et al. found Sedna to likely be in HE, but also that many objects with diameters of 400-1000 km (Sedna: ca.1000 km) have densities that don't seem to allow for them to be in HE. Compare the discussion at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Grundy_et_al.’s_assessment. Sedna's density remains unknown.
• and several astronomers have called it one - That's nice, but none of the cited references is younger than 10 years. We can add Grundy from 2019, but it would be nice to have additional recent sources. I'll see if I can find any. Maybe someone can have a look, too?
• What about the addition of an "observations" section? I see one reply above that argues against it, and one on the article talk page that is in favour of the addition. Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

References

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Planet

Notified: Double sharp, Serendipodous, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, talk page notice 2022-01-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its many problems. I've looked through the majority of "citation needed" tags - there are 40 of them now, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. Artem.G (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Artem.G, please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Done, I notified Double sharp and Serendipodous who edited the page not so long ago and who write about astronomy-related stuff; don't know how to find other major contributors who are active now. Artem.G (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm very busy for the next two or three months, but I fixed some cn tags where a citation immediately came to mind. Many of them are pretty standard facts. My apologies that I cannot do much more than this for the time being! Double sharp (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Upon a first quick examination, it seems that most of the {{cn}} tags can be filled by standard textbooks and/or digging references out of neighboring bluelinks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The lede is something of a mess. For example, there's no way that a niche term like "planemo" belongs in the first paragraph. (To illustrate, it gets 111 hits on Google Scholar, versus 4,380 for "planetoid" and over 20,000 for "planetesimal".) Nor does it follow the article's organization, jumping into arcana of the IAU definition (which I gather to some people is what MOS:ERA is for Wikipedians) before summarizing the history. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried my hand at drafting a new lede here, though I'm not sure whether the lede should be fixed first or last. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I like your version, it's definitely better than the current one! If nobody would object I see no reason why the old lede should be preferred. Artem.G (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and kicked the hornets' nest replaced the lede. I even resisted the temptation to add "so let's not fuck it up" to the end of the first paragraph.

We're down to 19 16 citations needed. Some of them can probably be filled in without altering the surrounding text, while others might be eliminated by purging the accumulated cruft. The page needs a lot of work, but what I can't yet say is how hard that work will be. Some of the problems might well be solved by taking a good look, recognizing that the sentence doesn't belong in a broad overview of a big idea, and cutting it away. Applying a machete can go pretty quickly. XOR'easter (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll be able to work on this any more; sorry. XOR'easter (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I added in the missing citations. I don't really have the bandwidth to think about what should be chopped and what should be kept. jps (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be a bunch of quotations in the subsection about the 2006 IAU definition of a planet that make the section look choppy, maybe we could try reducing it? Blue Jay (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Larrys Creek

Notified: Ruhrfisch, WP Rivers, WP Pennsylvania noticed in March 2021

This 2006 promotion needs a touch of updating to get back to featured article criteria, but should overall be a fairly doable save. There's a sizable amount of uncited material in the plank road section, and there is some areas that need updating. For instance, "and it is still in operation as of 2007" is supported by a 1992 work and the lodge's dead GoDaddy site, so there's no indication in the sources if it's still open or not. "As of 2006, the club has 55 active and 15 honorary members (all male)." could also use updating, and the whole recreation section probably needs to be checked for datedness. The claim of "Larrys Creek is the largest creek in Lycoming County without its own watershed association" appears to be no longer accurate, based on this and this. The first PDF linked is only from 2011, but still suggests that the natural gas stuff in the article needs updating, with a reference to 38 gas pads in the watershed and an incident involving drilling mud getting into the stream. It also states that two of the tributaries of the creek are officially considered to have impaired water quality. This also mentions that it is illegal to put water from the natural gas operations into Larrys Creek, which would be interesting to add if a better source than a lesson plan could be found. Hog Farm _Talk 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I cwill work on it, but am fairly busy in real life (though I should be less busy in 2 to 3 weeks). My recollection is that the Plank Road material is mostly from the Landis article (back in the day I went to a library with a print copy and read that, and there is link to a re-typed version of the article given here for convenience). - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to work on this! If you need to take several weeks to work on the article, that's fine. Hog Farm _Talk 04:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ruhrfisch has taken care of a good chunk of the uncited text. Hog Farm _Talk 14:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Diary of a Camper

Notified: TKD, JudgeDeadd, WP Film, WP Video games, WP Animation, talk page notice 2021-07-12

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, with problems noted on talk last July including sourcing, datedness, comprehensiveness, and prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• The reception section goes against all typical modern standards even for Good Articles, such as extensive use of direct quotations, such that I wouldn't even consider it up to modern GA standards. The references also need a total rework to connect them directly to inline citations with page numbers incorporated in them, which suggests to me that the referencing style is very outdated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Zxcvbnm please review the WP:FAR instructions; keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies, I removed it. It still works as commentary without the declaration though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Correct; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hmm... This looks like an interesting one. I'll do some work on it now but look at getting some serious edits in during the first week of May. Hopefully I should have addressed the talk page concerns and started really revising it by May 8. I'll add the comments from the talkpage below so that we can keep all the comments related to this review in one place. MSG17 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  MSG17 templates are avoided at FAR and FAR for Template limit issues. Also, it's not necessary to transfer the full talk page notice to this page; it is linked above, so I have removed it. You can work on talk and only update issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I will go back and redo my searches and see if I can pull up additional sourcing to update the content next week when I'm (finally) back to a more regular editing pattern. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks like you're doing a great job updating the article and providing more context. Thanks! MSG17 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I've gone looking at the first batch of sources I pulled and mostly I think they're just useful for further buttressing claims already in the article (first example of machinima.) There's a bit more that can be pulled out of the Den of Geek article I think, and then I'll go for a deeper trawl through my academic databases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
      • I've gone through and cut a lot of the overused quotes and summarized a bit more of the content; I've also added in a bit from the newer sources I've found. I've got one potential option for more from ILL that'll be here in a few days, but I think for the most part the well of newer coverage is exhausted. MSG17 has done a good job addressing other issues. The article still needs another stiff copyedit (I'll take a stab next week), but I think it's in much better shape than it was before. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've done a copyedit. Could use additional eyes, but I think the issues I brought up on the talk page have been addressed at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

So, ready for a full read-through now? On my list ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

USS Missouri (BB-63)

Notified: TomStar81, Parsecboy, Dawkeye, Bellhalla, Bschorr, WP MILHIST, WP Hawaii, WP NRHP, WP Missouri, WP Museums, WP Ships, WP Japan, WP Korea, WP USA, discussion of concerns in 2020

This 2005 promotion is now the second-oldest entry at WP:URFA/2020A. As noted in 2020 by Parsecboy, this article is over-reliant on DANFS at the expense of scholarly sources such as Stillwell. The article also directly copies DANFS for sizable swaths, which was quite acceptable at the time but is not really at FA today, especially when there's other literature to use. At a minimum, Stillwell should be used more, and Butler would be good for the grounding material. I suspect that Reilly would also be useful, although I am not familiar with that work. Much of the WWII section was improved back in 2020, but there hasn't been continued progress since. This is a pretty core article for MILHIST and especially for Operation Majestic Titan, hopefully it can be saved. Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• As Hogfarm noted, the article relies on DANFS too much; it's a government source, which should be used with some caution. Some use is fine depending on the context, and in the cases of very obscure ships, it's unavoidable, but Missouri is among the most famous, well-documented ships so finding alternatives is not a problem.
• There are a number of sources that could be consulted to address the DANFS issue, in addition to Stillwell. Garzke & Dulin would be a good first choice to supplement Stillwell. I'm not familiar with Reilly's book, but it should also be useful; Caresse's The Battleships of the Iowa Class: A Design and Operational History might also help (though I'm given to understand that it's pretty photo heavy).
• There is a fair bit of extraneous info that could be culled. For example, in the Korea section the two paragraphs that begin and end at "MacArthur's amphibious landings at Incheon...were evacuated by way of the sea on 24 December 1950." are almost completely off-topic that could be summarized in a sentence or two to provide the context needed.
• There are plenty of prose issues that need to be ironed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• The box is very long, and I don't think it does its purpose of summarizing the article well; it more or less fills the same purpose as the lead section (with the exception of technical information that is better suited to tabular display), and I think the article's authors have lost sight of that. It's filled with extraneous info that add little for the reader's understanding of the topic. I could happily see the badge, motto, and nickname fields go; the locator map for Pearl Harbor probably isn't of much use; I'm 50/50 on whether Margaret Truman should be listed in the sponsor field (in that yes, she's notable, but is she all that significant in the narrative of this ship that she should be mentioned in the box? The ordered field could probably go as well, in the interest of trimming things down. And the architect field in the NHRP section is redundant.
• Conversely, the lead is far too short and doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Why do we care that this ship was the third vessel named after the state? And why is that included when ship's WWII and Korea activities are described in a single sentence? No mention of goodwill cruises in the 1940s, or the grounding in 1950, or any of the ship's activities in the 80s and 90s apart from Desert Storm (which is also pretty minimal). For an article that is 75kb long, I'd expect more than 7(!) sentences in the lead.
• I'd wonder whether anything of note has happened since 2010, the latest info we have on the ship here. I know visitation was shut down in 2020, returned to limited operation late in the year, and then returned to full operation in mid-2021 - presumably that should be included. Apparently various educational activities and such are held aboard the ship - presumably that should be mentioned too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Beyond what Hog Farm and Parsecboy have already mentioned, the images seem a little repetitive. There are two photographs of the exact same perspective from different decades. That would be great in a coffee table book, but I'm not sure how that is encyclopedic as there is no mention of how the second one differs from the first one other than time and painted numbers. The pop culture section should discuss the vessel's use in film (why is it chosen over other American museum battleships) and not just have a listing of what movies the vessel appeared in. Was there any fallout from the Cher music video beyond the navy not being happy? Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • According to Stillwell, the Cher incident created a minor controversy in the press (and generated complaints from veterans) but nothing significant as far as official reactions; as far as what he says, it's not clear to me that the Navy was particularly unhappy, since it amounted to free publicity. Parsecboy (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Ah, so even more reason to support your positions earlier, Stillwell needs more use. Llammakey (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
      • For the curious (I was, obviously) the FA criteria added the bit about being representative of published works in Aug 2006, about a year after this article's FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• I’m late to this party, sorry, I’m just off work and after 8 long nights I am wiped out, but I note that I stand by what I stated earlier: the article itself is still sound. The external links are good and the sourcing is adequate, although the reliance on danfs and prose puffery have chewed into the articles quality. Still, though, this is a good 80% or so still featured article, so migrating sources and trimming prose shouldn’t be too hard here.
• As noted at the the article talk page, I'm not interested in becoming an advocate for FA status, but am interested in helping to improve the article, including working in some areas noted here. I did order the Stilwell and Butler books. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I received the Stilwell book and started reading it. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I believe that I resolved the issue of insufficient coverage of Korean war service in the lead. North8000 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think "USS Missouri Memorial Association Inc" requires its own subsection, and listing the salary ranges of its chief executives puts the article off focus (we don't put captain's pay grades in ship articles, you know). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Good points, I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Question for the FA regulars. I bought and am reading the Stilwell and Butler books. Stilwell is a very thorough and extensive book on the Missouri, and Butler is on the grounding. Some of the comments above were basically that heavy use of or reliance on DANFS is a minus with respect to the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" FA criteria. I'd be happy to add cites to some pages in those books to some items that are cited only to DANFS. My question is: with respect to that FA criteria and it's application here, would it be better to remove the DANFS cites on those or just leave them double cited? North8000 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  @North8000: Sorry for the slow reply and the logged out reply, I’m pulling a double shift tonight and I don’t log in on the iPad, however the answer is that you should double cite. This establishes two separate citations for the information, so if we lose one we can use the other in cases like that to confirm the info. I believe that I had seen Stillwell’s book on Missouri before, it should be several hundred pages of detailed information if I recall correctly…only now that I’m not a student I can’t get back to the library on campus to use the book because the COVID pandemic has it limited to students and staff only at the moment. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:CD89:8DDE:70F1:59CE (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an immense and thorough book. And it lists about 300 sources that it drew from (including interviews etc.) The only limitation is that it ends approx 1995. At that point the ship was de-comissioned, in Brementon, somewhat open to visitors. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the question of Margaret Truman in the info box, regarding info boxes, I'm sort of a "when in doubt, leave it out" guy. But that aside, she had a long history with / interactions with the ship that spanned many decades, and her dad was a strong and powerful (including as president) supporter of the ship, also with many interactions with the ship. IMO probably merits a line in the info box. North8000 (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I finished reading the Stillwell book and started adding cites in places where only DANFS was cited. Also based on detailed coverage in Stillwell, fixed what was clearly an error (results of star shell accident) and removed the web site source that had the error and was only used for that item. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC) I added put at least a dozen Stillwell cites in places that previously had only DANFS cites. The DANFOS cited could be removed but per advice above, I did not remove them so DANFS is cited as many times as before, albeit now with less reliance it. I believe that this resolves that issue. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm out of town for work right now but will try to give this a read through when I get a chance. Hog Farm _Talk 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm back, will begin a readthrough with any comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 Hog Farm _Talk 23:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have no prior history with this article but might be interested in trying to resolve these concerns. But I will also soon be working on The Core Contest, so my attention may be divided between articles for a bit. What is the usual timeline for FARs? DanCherek (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally, FARs will be left open as long as work in continuing on the article, but it is generally ideal for their to not be overly long gaps in the article improvement process. The hope, though, is always to save the star when possible. Hog Farm _Talk 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will give it a shot! DanCherek (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: - I see you've only edited the article once since April. Do you still think you'll be able to continue to make the needed improvements here? Hog Farm _Talk 20:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to focus on more than one major article at a time, and need to prioritize TCC in the short term... no objections to proceeding to FARC if needed. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess move to FARC then, with the hope that it will be worked on there as well. Hog Farm _Talk 21:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Noting for FAR purposes - DanCherek has started working on this one. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Update: work ongoing as of 28 April (t · c) buidhe 23:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC per comments above-- work stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 29 May 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: [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Good improvements ongoing, discussion on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Good progress, still two citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

If the two remaining tags can't be resolved, should that text be deleted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Both tags include some info that's definitely true, and I'd love a bit more time on resolving without removal. 48 hours? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No hurry, just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Truly, you are a vicious taskmaster. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Did what I could! There's still one cn tag. Maybe C and X want a crack at it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Trying to catch up from the car, iPad editing. I thought I had fixed this, but MOS:SANDWICH is back big time ... either images need to be removed, or they need to be moved or combined to multiple images ... I can't do that from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is underdeveloped and not an overview/summary; we go straight from a one-sentence intro para to mid-life, nothing on early life, and is Legacy covered enough? Lead needs expansion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Returning after a few weeks away, the lead is still underdeveloped, and MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. I can work no the sandwiching if no one else does, but we need a proper lead before the FAR can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hi Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia fixed up the sandwiching and I'm poking away at the lead. I keep being distracted by shiny new content for the body. As far as I know, we're one good lead rewrite away from most of the major issues being fixed. I'd hold out for a second opinion from SG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Agree and will do a full read-through after lead is done ... but have seen no major problems otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Californication (album)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Famous Hobo and Zmbro: - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm _Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zmbro and Famous Hobo: - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm _Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Sorry about the delay, I'll get back on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Famous Hobo LMK if you need help with reception. I know I can be of assistance there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Question: would this be considered reliable? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I think according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE the answer would be yes. The author appears to be a staff member. With that said, I'm not sure what the source would be used for? Is it used to further the claim that the album is derided for it's mixing? If that's the case, I think there are better sources out there. Also, thank you for the edits! I'm a slow editor if you couldn't tell, but I am working on a writing and recording section with the limited sources I've found for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah the masters issue, because a quick google search indicates that Californication is particularly notorious for having poor mastering. And no problem! Happy to help. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I wrote a short paragraph about the mastering issues in the retrospective commentary section. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this topic, so I probably glossed over some important information. In this book Perfecting Sound Forever (here) the author goes into detail about the specifics of the terrible mastering on Californication, then talks about some history not related to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, then goes back to Californication around page 280. Figured I should mention this. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes that's definitely useful. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:28, 26 May 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[12] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Usually would go for a separate article, but think here the section (now retitled "selected works" so we don't have to be exhaustive and converted to two columns so it doesn't take up too much space), we have is concise and manageable. Not opposed to spinning out however. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As an update, am traveling for another week or so, so do not have access to my book sources. Also have ordered [13] which looks promising for expansion. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Having seen your effort in ordering a book on her, I also made some online research and intend to work on the article a bit while you are away for the next week or so.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Am really delighted to hear that :) Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I am getting into it. On her relationship with Bryher there seemed to be quite much written and Norman Holmes Pearson, the holder of her copyrights is not mentioned yet in the article. They seemed to have had an extensive, decades-long professional relationship, with him publishing her works also after her death. H.D.'s daughter Perdita seemed to be working with him during WW 2 in the secret service.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As an update, my copy arrived yesterday, but am still at the reading through stage. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am updating the article with info I find. I don't so much take care on prominent sources (because I don't find them on the subject) but on info I see as notable. But like this it might not be a FA. I hope for Coeil to maybe find some ways to keep it an FA. A personal life section might be good? Or a section where the shifting relationships are better described? As to me that H.D. and Bryher kept being a couple while changing husband and lover is north a section. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for your comments. Most material is now supported by citations, inappropriate bolding removed, and the lead has undergone signficant copyedits, so hopefully it is now more accesssible. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't read through yet.

• Is interfers British spelling?
• "For example, in the Lineweaver–Burk plots at the right, ... " nothing at the right ... so a complete read-through is needed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I updated the lead to make it more accessible for laypeople and corrected some minor misspellings and whatnot. Surprisingly, „interfers“ is not (yet) accepted British spelling. But I daresay it will be someday, as a posher variant of gofers — looks better on a résumé, no? ;)

I also clarified the text regarding the Lineweaver-Burk plots, to make it easier to recognize which diagrams are meant and how they illustrate the type of inhibition (competitive vs. non-competitive).

I've also done a quick scan through the article to find mistakes, but not yet a thorough read-through. Willow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I am going to be traveling for my son's wedding, and won't be able to follow progress on this nom for several weeks, but on a quick final glance I see:

• Paragraphing in the lead makes no sense and it is still not lay-reader friendly.
• WP:CITATION OVERKILL ... maximum reaction rate catalyzed by the enzyme) and Km (the concentration of substrate resulting in half maximal enzyme activity) as the concentration of the enzyme's substrate is varried.[2][4][5][6][7]: 132–167 
• Still some text that is uncited that needs citation.
• Still some MOS:BOLD wonkiness.
• A complete read-through is needed.

GamerPro64 I won't be available to help bring this one over the line. Perhaps you can enlist Graham Beards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia for your constructive comments. Concerning the lead, for context, it should brefily put in context what an enzyme is and why it is important, but perhaps it could be trimmed back a bit to focus more closely on inhibitors, and that might make it a bit easier to digest. Concerning the single bolded term that is not in the lead sentence, covalent reversible inhibitors is a redirect, and hence is an allowed exception to MOS:BOLD. I will work on adding more citations to other parts of the article and remove citation overkill. Congrats to your son and enjoy your trip! Boghog (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I can follow from iPad, but can't do much to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think all the concerns raised above have now largely been addressed. If there are any remaining issues, please let me know and I will try to fix them. Just one note in passing. Above it was suggested that we need a medical review. However, with the exception of the Enzyme_inhibitor#Drugs section, this article is more within the scope of WP:MCB than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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 [14], 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)

Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through and applied various fixes and made refinements to the content and references. All tags have been addressed. It looks like XOR'easter and CactiStaccingCrane have been doing the same. Hopefully it's back close to FA quality now. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: , is FARC necessary? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This YouTube video here: [15] from 3:47 – 4:20 shows a good graphic about the Solar System's composition. What else do you guys want me to add? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There hasn't been much in the way of substantial edits this month, are we done? Mikenorton, @David Fuchs:, Hemiauchenia? (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• As I said above, I'm finished, unless there are any comments on the changes that I've made that need action. Mikenorton (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• I think there shouldn't be any issues related to the originally-raised ones, but Hemiauchenia is the one who probably most needs to check in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

Some months ago, I attempted to standardize the citation style after Drmies made considerable edits (see discussion above). Drmies had used the citation template, rather than cite templates, which do not use trailing punctuation, so I removed trailing punctuation from the short notes. Subsequent edits have re-introduced cite templates, short notes with trailing punctuation, and a mixed citation style. Which style is wanted? My preference would be to remove the citation templates originally used and go with cite templates, so we don't need the silly |ps= none on every short note. At any rate, one style needs to be decided on and implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed, Sandy (although she may not know that yet!), and I agree that the |ps=none is wholly unnecessary, and just adds to to the cite bloat. SN54129 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
    • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
      • SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

        Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

        Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the difference! I think I made two additions to the Sources list myself, and looking back, one of them was using Cite book, and the other used Citation because I copied and changed another publication by the same person which used Citation. Please do all you can to standardise it. John O'London (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging John O'London as they've been working on the article lately. Hog Farm _Talk 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the page ranges are too broad; specific page nos. needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• What are the correct pages here? Is it one page (13) or a page range with a typo?

  Hartley-Kroeger, F. (2019). "Review of The Green Children of Woolpit, by J. Anderson Coats". Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 73: 13–13. OCLC 760196674. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I can't help with Bulletin of Center for Children's Books - but what are the specific other ones with page ranges 'too broad'? [Sorry - just spotted Simpson/Roud, Harder and Duckworth!] (Thanks for all your hard work!) John O'London (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

    I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

    Does anyone have immediate access to the Duckworth reference (Australian Literary Studies 26.3-4) to check the page number? I can't access the 2011 volume online, and at the British Library you need to order it up two days in advance - and I'm not planning to go there again soon. Thanks to DrKay for sorting out the Oxford dictionary refs! John O'London (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

FAR discussion - I came late to this - the Green Children article was on my watchlist, but I wasn't aware of the move to FAR until after User:Serial Number 54129 added a considerable amount of text to the article on 30 March - in fact expanding the article by 50%. The questions surely became, were the extensions of the same FA quality as the original, were they properly integrated with the original, and does the expanded edition warrant FA status. Much of the discussion took place before that expansion. User:drmies and User:SandyGeorgia had already begun making improvements. I've done quite a bit of work on the expanded version since, checking and adding refs, occasionally tweaking the language to make it (I think) clearer. But I've avoided any major rewrites, even when I think the text as-is might be misleading. To declare an interest, in real life it's a subject I've done a lot of work on - I know too much about it, and have my own opinions about the subject; I also regard some of the sources cited as unreliable, not worth citing, or just plain wrong (all three are true of Varner 2006, for example!). So I shouldn't be editing it at all! Could some disinterested party read through it? - for example, does it now meet the first of the FA criteria? Is it really "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Does it now have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? John O'London (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

and with apologies, I should obviously have restricted my tinkering to the extra 50% text added by Serial Number 54129, rather than the original FA text. But he had inadvertently introduced some errors in the original text, like changing the date of the Duckworth ref from 2011 to 2006, and I didn't always distinguish between what was original FA and his additions. It was the extent of his additions, which seem to have been accepted without query in the middle of an FAR, that encouraged me to think what I wanted to do would be acceptable.John O'London (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Your arguments alone would warrant delisting, if you provide more detail on issues of sourcing and accuracy. My earlier "Move to FARC" declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I may answer at length later - but here's a pretty typical example of what happened when I started editing it. Serial Number 54129 had introduced a new section heading 'Music' - under it they included (taking the text from the original FA article) Glyn Maxwell's play Wolfpit - which is a verse play without music. So I simply moved it to the previous section, which contained various other literature. But then I read what the original FA article said about it "In 2002 English poet Glyn Maxwell wrote a verse play based on the story of the green children, Wolfpit (the earlier name for Woolpit), which was performed once in New York City." No, Maxwell wrote and published his play in 1996, and it was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that year. So I found a source to cite for the 1996 performance, and changed the date - but also left the ref to the NYT review in the original FA for the later NYC performance (there've been more than one in NYC - and no doubt others elsewhere). This is what I meant about whether the additions were properly integrated and the need to consider the whole of the new version. John O'London (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

    MONGO could you provide an update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

    A little over halfway through updating refs.--MONGO (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

    Refs all updated. Need a bit yet to cleanup wording and add any further developments such as recovery, etc.--MONGO (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 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,[16] 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)

Thanks Hawkeye7 for adding the ALT text, and for SG for clarifying the very muddy waters of MOS:ALT. I've taken some time away from this article to hopefully bring a fresh perspective to it. I made some copyediting changes, which I encourage others to review and change if desired. My only concern is with the following sentence: "Kraft commented in his autobiography that, with the choice of his name, "some of my life's direction was settled from the start"." I think this is referring to Kraft sharing a name with Christopher Columbus but I'm just guessing here. Can this quote be briefly explained in the article? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The book says:

My father considered his name onerous; it had forced him to survive teasing as a boy and the occasional jibe as an adult. But in that glowing moment, it hit my mother just right. I was only minutes old and now the burden was mine, too. Can a name influence the course of a life? I've had most of a century to ponder that question. I think with a name like Christopher Columbus Kraft Jr. some of my life's direction was settled from the start.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to incorporate the above quote into the article, so I'll drop this concern unless someone suggests wording. I'm ready to declare keep with the understanding that as more secondary sources become available, the article will try to reduce the number of citations to Kraft's autobiography, where appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 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)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning keep, although I don't have much familiarity with the source material. Hog Farm _Talk 03:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are we told this (is there some later relevance)? "His father died on New Year's Day in 1957, aged 64." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

My inclination is that that can be removed, but I'll wait to hear from Hawkeye in case they're aware of some relevance. Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some people like to add (birth-death) to the subject's parents, and when it gets queried or rewritten we get something like that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Checking on this recent edit, I see that award is mentioned elsewhere in the article and could be all covered in the Awards and honors section. And from viewing just the Awards and honors section, it is apparent the article has not yet been copyedited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 28 May 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)

CMD, I don't agree with your statement. We have a separate article Antarctic, which covers the continent + surrounding islands. Increasing the coverage of islands here just blurs the line between the two articles. (wanted to flag this up, as I've just deleted the sentence about Signey Island in Climate). Femke (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That looks like a very poor quality fork which should be merged and redirected. We don't exclude Great Britain from the Europe article or Madagascar from the Africa article, the same in terms of comprehensiveness applies to this article. CMD (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell nobody has ever formally proposed a merge before - so I have now at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antarctica#Merger_proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 7 May 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: [17] 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)

• Update: I'm willing to try and take this over the finish line, but it'll take some time. I'll be on holiday till the end of the month, so bear with me. Femke (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Copy-edit by GOCE done. It was a new editor with a good eye for underlinking, and for unclear/overly technical statements (some of the other aspects needed reverting). I'm still working on improving source quality / checking text-source integrity. I'm going at a glacial pace, and may need another 8 weeks to finish. Femke (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Update Almost there. I would like to work a bit more on the research section (why omit all Latin Americans research stations, but include smaller Western stations?). The issues I've been tackling have been quite extensive (as expected from an old article such as this): quite a few factual errors removed, many instances of sources not checking out. As such, I would very much welcome comments from others before I'm comfortable having this FAR closed. User:FunkMonk: do you have time for another look over the biodiversity section? Femke (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it looks fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 22 May 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)

Aza24 do you have an estimate on timing for finishing up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a good question—I'm probably not taking part in TCC so I can focus on this. I'm thinking in the next two weeks I can get most of the preexisting issues fixed up, and add the more obvious omissions. After then I'll try to draft a new reputation section, which will need to include quite a bit of new scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

27 April Update Thanks everyone for their patience, I'm going to give an idea of my general plans from today onwards (for mainly myself, but also so others know progress is being made and areas for improvement have been identified).

• Life section
  • Need to take another look at the 1st paragraph of Birth and background; last paragraph of Ferrara; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life
  • Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left(might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)
  • The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
  • The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
• Music
  • Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
  • Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
  • 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
• Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
• What has been done already:
  • Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
  • Entirely new Portraits section has been added
  • Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
  • Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
  • The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
  • Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
• My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Slow work recently, but I've crossed off some things from the list above that have been addressed. Aza24 (talk) 23:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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.[18] 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)

FAR break

Okay, so as of April 25, 2022, I feel that as long as content and source reliability is concerned, I have tried to fix most of the issues. It has also been updated with the most recent information. There may still be few prose issues and old verifiability issues. At this stage, I'd appreciate others commenting on the state of the article and what could be done to improve it. For comparison:

• The FA promoted version — August 12, 2008 : this
• The FAR nominated version — December 20, 2021 : this
• Current version — April 26, 2022 : this
  • Changes since nominated for FAR : this

Pinging everyone associated with this FAR: @Nutez, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Sdkb, Buidhe, and Z1720: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead is a long way from featured-quality prose and will need a lot of work; I haven't read beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Those minor issues have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Now April 15, could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikkimaria. The maps are done, which for me was the hardest part. The history section is moving along. And I have quite a few notes ready to transferred to the article. We not in the doldrums. We'll be done by April 30, and maybe before. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is still a distressing amount of image clutter, and a gynormous infobox pushing well into the article, that contains lengthy text, a large map, and multiple photos. I haven't looked at content because of the visual assault effect from the infobox plus images. I assume this is still being addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

On my screen, it's awful with a giant amount of empty whitespace in the seismology section. As a note, there only seems to be freedom of panorama for sculpture, not 2D work, in India, so File:Proposed map of Gorkhaland, 2009, Singamari, Darjeeling.jpg may not be freely licensable. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The lead will increase in size, so the infobox will loom less large, relatively speaking. I'm using the local big boy for the model. Its lead is 400 words, compared to 250 for Darj. Part of the problem is that West Bengal, the Indian state in which Darj lies is thin and tall. I don't mind showing only part of the state but don't have a good feel for how others will react. Boston barely shows the Cape. Please give me something to model on. The image sizes are large only because it is easier for me to see them; they will be reduced to standard, thumbnails. The proposed map I'm happy to remove. In five minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd take a multi-factorial approach; lose the map in the infobox, lose one row of the images, and lose some of the content (postal codes, really, Wikipedia is not a phone book). We can't have it all, and don't need it all ... there is just way too much happening in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

:) I have no feeling (nor sympathy for the phone book). Just didn't want to step on toes. Will do Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Reduced image sizes in History. How do they look? The Geography bit I'm clueless about. I mean in the mechanics of displaying. Not sure why the year-round temperatures are needed, but they seem to be a common feature of city articles. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm almost done with the British Raj section of history; the last two parags are not mine and will change. I have texts line up for the postcolonial history section which should be done in a couple of days. Eventually, once the text is in place, I'll make it a little less discursive, more encyclopedically deadpan. Beyond history, I have sources and some text lined up for the modern tea-industry in economy; flora and fauna; and food (the picture with the little obligate carnivore bottom left is my addition) I've never been to Darjeeling, though I have to some other parts of the mountain ranges South Asia is blessed with. Have to run now, but these comments are very useful, and welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler: - I see you're still actively working on this - what's the status? It looks like, among other things, the referencing has improved and the layout is much better, although the school children image is making the references do weird things on my screen. Hog Farm _Talk 21:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, I am back. I will give it that one last spurt to restore the article's shine, including fixing the picture in the last section. Thanks for your understanding and patience. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

    How does it look? If it looks reasonable, I can do the spot checks rigorously and rewrite the lead to reflect the revised article content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    I will also read through the article for prose issues (coherence especially) and fix them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

    That was for @Hog Farm: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

    F&f, I'll try to look at this at some point over the next couple days - I just got back from a rough work trip to the armpit of Missouri and need to get caught up on some stuff both on wiki and some more stuff for work. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

    No problemo Amigo. I have fond memories of St Louis, from many years ago, but from a vacation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I fixed everything I could find. XOR'easter (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  • So where does this article stand now? Are there any other major concerns about this article? Blue Jay (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@The great Jay: Are the editors fixing up this article ready for reviews? If so, indicate below and some reviewers will look at the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the article is ready for review, in case there are some things that haven't been fixed yet. Blue Jay (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The infobox length is pretty extreme; consider that mobile viewers have to scroll through the entire thing before reading all of the lead. I think it would be improved by reducing the amount of information you're trying to convey in that format, to be more concise and accessible. But I'm not going to support delisting on that basis. I will oppose keeping until all the info there is sourced. (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there some way to have the infobox be collapsed in mobile view? (If there isn't, shouldn't there be? That limitation must affect a stupendous number of articles.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe so. Templates on mobile are often pretty broken - they either mess up the layout or more often don't appear at all. Hog Farm _Talk 01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's a drag.

I've started filling in references for the infobox and checking which of the values are covered by the references already present. I've also posted an inquiry on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Astronomy for additional eyes. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we need to a source for each calculation on the infobox? Blue Jay (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say we need at least one for each section of it (a set of related numbers can all be drawn from a common source). If there's a number which isn't explicitly given in any source but has to be calculated, then including it is probably WP:UNDUE. We don't need to give numbers that nobody has cared about. I had a brief related discussion here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Blue Jay (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just an observation, but I've noticed that the Mars Fact Sheet source says that the Longitude of Ascending node is around 49.57854 degrees, while the actual article itself says that its 49.558 degrees. Blue Jay (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

That's probably another example of the same issue. I'd just take everything from the Mars Fact Sheet for consistency. It's possible that we picked up some wonky numbers along the way from somebody trying to compute the values for themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed that the article says that the argument of perihelion is 286.502 degrees, but the closest source I could find (https://www.princeton.edu/~willman/planetary_systems/Sol/Mars/), rounds off that number to 286.5 degrees. Blue Jay (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to the rounded-off value of 286.5 degrees, which is consistent with Allen (2000) and the Mars Fact Sheet (336.04084 - 49.57854). XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything else left to do? Blue Jay (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What makes "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must" a high quality RS?

IMO the lead right now doesn't do a great job summarizing the body. It goes from names to "terrestrial planet", mountains on Mars to moons. Should be rewritten in a more coherent order and reflecting the major body sections. (t · c) buidhe 09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Mars's crust and core in the lead. Blue Jay (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I've made some rearrangements and moved some excess detail into the body text. I don't dislike the opening paragraph now; explaining the origin of the name early on seems good to me, but perhaps it could be moved to the part of the lede that summarizes the visual appearance and culture stuff. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the future missions to Mars receive a mention in the lead? Blue Jay (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if the body text of the article says enough about them to make that necessary, but it's not a bad idea either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I added mentions of the Rosalind Mars Rover Mission and the Mars sample-return mission in the lead. Blue Jay (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I did a check and the only thing in the infobox that remains unsourced is the equatorial rotation velocity of Mars. Blue Jay (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I've tweaked it to something that I think is justifiable. XOR'easter (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears that astronomycafe.net appears to just be one of those faqs, so maybe we could replace it with another source? Blue Jay (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, XOR has retired now. BloatedBun (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Aw, well thats a shame. Blue Jay (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Should the lead also mention the history of how Mars was observed? Blue Jay (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it already is? (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Do we also need sources for all the temperature values for the infobox? Blue Jay (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they should all have a verifiable source. (t · c) buidhe 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Its hard to find a source for the temperature of Mars in kelvin, closest one I could find is the Mars Fact sheet but the minimum and maximum temperature of Mars in Kelvin still remains unsourced. Should we just remove the kelvin section from the infobox altogether? Blue Jay (talk)

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.

Jack Sparrow

Notified: Alientraveller, PNW Raven, Brojam, WikiProject Disney, WikiProject Piracy, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, talk page notice 2022-04-26

Review section

Since the 2015 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jack Sparrow/archive1, this article has been left behind and was never watchlisted by editors or took care the article. The article has been outdated for some time, and there have been no updates or additional content added since the recent lawsuit. There are also several templates in other sections. The reception/cultural impact could be expanded a lot and maybe remove most of the listicles on that section. BloatedBun (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist It looks like this article just needs a little touching up, but as of right now it is definitely does not look like an FA. The lead is fine, but it mentions nothing about his reception. There are also 7 unreliable sources used, which includes Imbd, International Business Times, and goodreads. There is also a post 2013 Newsweek and Allmovie ref as well as a dead link. I also think there are way too many primary sources, but I didnt look into where they are being used. The characters section looks pretty good except for when it is not even talking about the and is talking about the movie such as this On Stranger Tides was first announced on September 28, 2008, during a Disney event at the Kodak Theatre. Verbinski did not return to direct the fourth installment and was replaced by Rob Marshall. The movie uses elements from Tim Powers' novel of the same name, particularly Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth, but the film is not a straight adaptation of the novel. The fifth film, Dead Men Tell No Tales, was co-directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. I think the Johhny Depp section is good as well as the make-up and costumes section. The film section seems to be fine. I don't think the stuff like this in characterization needs to be said which compels the admiration of Lieutenant Groves as he concedes: "That's got to be the best pirate I have ever seen". Norrington himself acquiesces to this praise: "So it would seem", in sharp contrast to what he had previously proclaimed: "You are without doubt the worst pirate I have ever heard of"., but that might just be me. The part in characterization where it talks about what Jack was based off and inspired by needs to go in concept and creation. The second paragraph in reception and impact on pop culture looks good, but the first one is just mainly listicles. In other media seems to be fine unless it can really be expanded. That is just my quick overview of the article which has lead me to an unfortunate delist. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Kaleeb18 please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or Delist are not declared at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  SandyGeorgia oh oops. thanks for telling me. I guess I did not thoroughly read the message at WikiProject Disney and thought we were already on that stage. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no significant progress to address comprehensive concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC issues identified remain unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency, sourcing, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Maximus the Confessor

Notified: Pastordavid, WT:BIO, WT:GREECE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece/Byzantine world task force, WT:XNB, WT:SAINTS, WT:CATHOLIC, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, WT:ANGLICAN, WT:LUTHER, WT:PHIL, WT:RELIGION, talk-page notice 2022-03-22

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing/comprehensiveness concerns and other issues. As noted on the talk page, some content lacks citations altogether, and I'm also concerned by the reliance on outdated sources like Philip Schaff and the Catholic Encyclopedia. More significantly, there are a number of books in the further reading section and elsewhere that aren't cited at all: Thunberg 1995, Louth 1996, Nichols 1994, and many, many more. That's a major red flag, and the rather brief article has other serious comprehensiveness issues: it provides only minimal scholarly commentary on Maximus's theology, the debates over biographical facts (stemming from contradictions between the two main sources) are touched on only briefly, and the legacy and reception sections are incomplete. More minor issues include citation formatting, MOS:SANDWICH, and content that appears only in the lead. This is an important article, but I fear it would require a very significant amount of work to bring it back up to standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the phrase "Imperial Capital". It is capitalized once, but not the other time. Most readers probably won't know which city it is, so sentences should be worded to indicate that. Also, saying he wrote the "earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus" sounds not quite right. Just ending the sentence with "the Virgin Mary" or should be enough. But with, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" the question turns to, Why not "Mary, the Mother of God"? Is the author a heretic? He wasn't a heretic, so the the article should reflect that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC lack of engagement/edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC – no progress, unfortunately. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no significant edits since it has been sent to FAR. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Notified: AlexJ, DH85868993, Spa-Franks, WP Formula One, WP Microstates, talk page notice 2021-10-09

Review section

This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard; the FAC nominator has not edited for almost 10 years. The 2021-10-09 issues outlined on talk are comprehensiveness. There is also MOS:SANDWICH, and other indications that a MOS review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC lack of edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - some improvements in February, but nothing really since then. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no significant edits since this has been brought to FAR. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Association football

Notified: Raichu, Aplucas0703, Woody, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Sports, 2022-03-29

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the history section is missing events from the late 2000s and 2010s, there are some uncited sections, and some currency concerns. I think there are some parts of this article that are in excellent shape, but this article needs updates. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC; issues remain unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Michigan State Capitol

Notified: Pentawing, Jtmichcock, Goldnpuppy, Aaronjbaylis, Neutrality, WP USA, WP Michigan, WP NRHP, WP Architecture, WP Politics, noticed 2022-03-21

Review section

A 2006 promotion last formally reviewed in 2007 that needs significant work to get to modern FA standards. There is significant uncited text, spot checks of a few refs for me found failed verification, and I've noted two instances of borderline close paraphrasing on talk. It's also concerning that the article is largely sourced to websites, mainly from the Michigan government, when U of M has published a couple print books on the subject. Hog Farm _Talk 17:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC a few one-off edits, but nothing addressing the majority of the issues here. Hog Farm _Talk 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC lack of edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, issues not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 13:38, 29 May 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)
  • Does "He was rated as a three-star recruit, and several major college basketball programs showed interest in him" work better? Hog Farm _Talk 13:17, 12 April 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)

  This appears to have been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:17, 12 April 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)

• I looked through it again and made some changes. I don't see a whole lot. Keep in mind, except for the parts I added as part of this review, the rest of the article hasn't been edited much since it went through FAC. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• With this one having run for three months, hopefully we can push this across the line soon. I kept the official scorebook for my high school team several times, so while I've got a bit of familiarity with basketball its been several years and I'm a bit rusty. Hog Farm _Talk 13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I keep coming back here, hoping to get this one closed up, but issues persist.

• MOS:NUMNOTES calls for consistency in whether digits or spelled out numbers are used within a list, but we have mixes going every which direction here. One style needs to be settled on and used consistently throughout. It is 7 starts and 12 assists, or seven starts and twelve assists, but not seven starts and 12 assists.
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• I can't decipher why this quote is in the article; what a missing? "The freshman commented, "The best thing I can do is pass. I really don't have to look at them (my team members). I just tell them to be ready."[17]"
  • I've tried to clarify a bit that this is Clinkscales describing his style of play. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Freshman, Sophomore, Junior and Senior are all one-paragraph sections; are the sections really needed? His college career is long past.
  • All one section now. Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I think it is much easier to read split-up. In practice, people might only want to read one specific year or one year at a time (potentially out of order), and those are both harder to do without the sub-sections. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Why is this in the article? The team welcomed incoming freshman, and the reigning Mr. Basketball of Michigan, Wilson Chandler.[24]
  • Removed, since Chandler doesn't play any other role in the article this seems to just be a name-drop. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• "Three-pointer" is jargon, and there doesn't seem to be an article to wikilink to.
  • Linked to Three-point field goal. I'm not sure if an inline gloss is necessary, as it is pretty much exactly what the name suggests. It could be rephrased to "three-point shot" if needed, I guess. Hog Farm _Talk 13:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• I can't tell what this sentence means, and it seems out of place in the flow ? Clinkscales came off the bench to help the team extend their two-point lead with under eight minutes left in regulation to 12 points at the end of the game.
  • I've boldly removed this entire sentence, as I do not think this detail is really, truly significant. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• The beginning of the article uses unspaced WP:EMDASHES (in the summer of 1996, Clinkscales—standing 4 ft 8 in (1.42 m)—was noticed); later on, the article uses spaced WP:ENDASHES (with Villanova, as he finished with 11 assists – the most he would record as a senior.) Pick one, check throughout.
  • Fixed. I think there were a only few instances of dashes used in this manner in general. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• I have a sense of reading through endless stats about his college and early career years, rather than highlights and important points.
  • He wasn't a good player in those years, so he didn't have many highlights. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Is everything in the lead contained within the article? I couldn't find it all, but haven't gotten through the entire article. The stats are causing me to glaze over.
  • Date of birth and height are in the lead and nowhere else, while uniform number and weight are in the infobox but nowhere else. From what I've seen, weight generally isn't mention in athlete bio articles, so it can be removed most likely. Hog Farm _Talk 19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I've added the dob into the article body and have removed weight from the infobox as it's not all that relevant for basketball and is probably not accurate anymore. Not sure where best to work in height or uniform number. Hog Farm _Talk 15:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: - Any chance you'd be able to finish off the last few of these? Hog Farm _Talk 13:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I addressed the remaining points. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, I guess with a similar rationale as to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Quatermass and the Pit/archive1. Not our finest FA, but not an embarrassment either. As to the heavy amounts of stats - I haven't been able to find a whole lot that could be used instead, although I'm not familiar with basketball sources and where to find them. He didn't have a flashy career, and his style of play wasn't all that flashy either, so I imagine this is one of those subjects that is by nature going to be stats heavy. Hog Farm _Talk 17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, with notes. I think the article suffers from some "too much detail", especially with the "College career" section, and I would probably summarise this information more effectively. I also think "Professional career" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, as sections contain one paragraph, and I would merge some of these sections together (and perhaps remove some overly detailed prose). After conducting some MOS fixes, my thoughts are this article, in its current form wouldn't be bad enough for me to bring it to FAR so I'm OK with closing this as keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, with an I guess as per Hog Farm. Not a stellar FA, but not something I would bring to FAR. I'd not suggest choosing to re-run this on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree about TFA, this isn't the quality of FA I'd like to see be run on the main page. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 29 May 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[19] interestingly a Guardian opinion piece declared that he was behaving "antithetical to AFL principles" in June 2021.[20] 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)

• The Slattery book is self-published. Does Slattery have any credentials for the topic? (This is a subject of which I have essentially no familiarity). Hog Farm _Talk 13:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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 [21] 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.[22] @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, Z1720 raised the following concerns. This is how they've been addressed:

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

Sinking into reality noted in the same section above:

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

In the delist discussion above, Hchc2009 mentions issues with:

• Primary sources (Done: there are few primary sources in citations (e.g., Aquinas may be one, but is appropriate to support paraphrase). Most have been moved to footnotes when used.)
• Original research (Done: there was a bit of this due to the sock puppet issue, these have been removed and statements now have verifiable citations.)

Other issues:

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

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

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

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

• MOS:FIRST: ". Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Can the other names she is known by be moved out of the first sentence, to the end of the first para? What a mess of clutter in the first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some/many people will read only the first para ... a big leap is made here that omits the British and leaves the impression the French killed her: "is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War. She was convicted and burnt at the stake as a heretic, but her conviction was later overturned." Adding something about captured and transferred to British would help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Curious about why all Saints are not linked here, and why Baudricourt makes it into the lead ... " later testifying that she had received visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her request to see the king was rejected twice, but eventually the garrison commander Robert de Baudricourt relented and gave her an escort to meet Charles at Chinon." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• What does successive add here? ") after the successive deaths of his four older brothers." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sentence in first paragraph on Joan's death added L'Origine du monde on 6 April 2022. Seemed like a good addition. Just edited it slightly by adding "by the English".

SandyGeorgia

• I just deleted the name and nickname items. La Pucelle is mentioned in the article with references. Maid of Orleans is not mentioned or cited in the text, but if you feel it is important we could move it to the Early Legacy. I can find a reference somewhere. Just let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it out.
• There's a footnote on why the saints are not linked. They were linked in the past, but this is one of the times the suspected sock puppet was right: Joan never specified which Saints were Margaret and Catherine. I looked it up. Many scholars assume it is Margaret of Antioch and Catherine of Alexandria. See Sullivan, 1999, pp. 88–89, who is cited in the footnote. There are links in the footnote too. But, if you prefer to link them in the main text. Let me know. Both options make sense: one is slightly more accurate. The other gives readers context.
• Baudricourt was there when I arrived. It's a critical point in Joan's story, but I agree Baudricourt shouldn't steal the lead limelight. Baudicourt is out of the lead now.
• "Successive" is gone. Wtfiv (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made some MOS changes. Overall, I think this is ready to keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-Joan-reviewer comment) Imho, 'Maid of Orléans' should absolutely get a mention; it's more than a nickname as we would recognise it, it had a deliberate double symbolism; Maid, emphasising her virginity, and Orléans, where the French resurrection began. It's not a modern invention of lady novelists either; a little known French writer called Voltaire wrote a lengthy poem in 1796 called La Pucelle, or, The Maid of Orléans. Great stuff it is too—draws a direct link to the rebellion of Joan against the English with the sans culottes] against the French crown. Á la lanterne, aristos!  :) SN54129 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129, I added a sentence in her early legacy, mentioning that she was called the Maid of France. During her life she called herself La Pucelle, but Pernoud and Clin mention that the first literary mention of Maid of France is in 1630. The Voltaire is mentioned in the cultural depictions of Joan article. I usually think of his work in the context of Schiller's play, which stikes me as a kind of romantic response to Voltaire's vision. Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excekllent analysis, Wtfiv, and apologies, I was only looking at this page, not 'daughter' pages  :) SN54129 16:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also, on sourcing. There are several curious omissions; Allmand's HYW is of course great, but his Lancastrian Normandy is specifically on the Henrician period; Crane's article on the significance of clothing ditto, but she later expanded her thesis into a full-length work, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War; surprised not to see anything from René Ambühl on the 15th C. period of the wars; and not forgetting, of course, L. J. Andrew Villalon's trilogy. Yet, Vita Sackville-West is an appropriate source while Anne Curry is an external link?! SN54129 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129 I replaced two Crane article citatons with citations of her book. The book is later and adds a bit, but the article is strong because it is more focused. The sources I used were used because they are reliable and can be verified by link. I didn't attempt to cover the vast breadth of the Joan bibliography, though some reviewers may feel the references is already too large. Do feel free to add any other citations you'd like to the article. I would ask that if at all possible, it'd be great to pick sources that can be link verified. This article had previously been subject to a number of citations that didn't make the claims given to them.

An accessible work by Curry et al. (2015) was added as a source and used as citation for two points. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside. Sackville-West keeps getting critiqued. Perhaps because she is not an academic historian. Yet, she was careful in her biography and research, going through the source material and amply footnoting. The academic literature responds to her work respectfully, though as usual questioning some of her point of view, and it strikes me as well written. If editors wish to delete her, I think it could be done without too much impact to the article. So please do so, if you wish. But I think her biography provides an enriching perspective.Wtfiv (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)