Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2021

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) [1].

History of timekeeping devices

edit
Notified: Keilana, Bibliomaniac15, Anonymous Dissident, Grimhelm, AndonicO, Zginder, Phoenix-wiki, WikiProject Time, WikiProject History of Science, talk page diff March 27

I am nominating this 2008 featured article for review because of the unaddressed concerns from RetiredDuke last month: lede that is too long, multiple talk page messages that are unanswered about inaccuracies, unsourced text and failed verification. While impressive, this will need a lot of careful work to bring back up to FA level. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi there! Thanks for the notification but I am no longer active on Wikipedia and unfortunately I won't have time to bring the article back up to FA standards. My apologies! · Andonic contact 04:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paused here to help out on the GAN backlog drive, will return soon to tackle the 18th century some more. Amitchell125 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back on to it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page page comments now addressed. Now on the development of the watch in 20th century. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Femkemilene and Nikkimaria, I've completed addressing the issues raised—the article now requires another pair of eyes to check it through. I can respond to comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant. Thank you very much for your work. Only some quick nitpicking:
    • I think the lede should be slightly expanded again; the first two paragraphs are a bit short (maybe overcompensated?). If more logical, three fuller paragraphs would also work for me..
Lead section rewritten. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN121 misses pp
Ref amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN195 has all caps and I htink should be in the references section?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The healing of Hezekiah is put as fact rather than Bible story
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:METRIC, international units go first, feet later in 20 feet (6.1 m)
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noticing a when tag
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the alts are not that informative and somewhat repetitive of the caption. The Egyptian sundial could for instance be described as a semicircle-shaped rock with radial ingravings (or something in better prose). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll be happy for this to be closed without FARC when the above is addressed, but brain is bit muddled at the moment, so more pairs of eyes would be good. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Femkemilene and Amitchell125: - I ought to be able to take a look at this in chunks over the next week, if y'all would like me to take a look at this. As a quick note, I'd recommend replacing the History Channel ref with something better - history channel has a history of producing fringe crap, and I'd be particularly hesistant to cite them for anything related to ancient technology given that they're the people responsible for Ancient Aliens. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that ref, now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without FARC - I gave this a read-through, and I only see very minor things to point out that are mainly stylistic phrasing. Good save here. Hog Farm Talk 00:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without FARC - My concerns at the Talk Page have been answered, and I think the article meets the criteria now, especially in terms of referencing and use of reliable sources. Just a minor point of confusion that I could not fix myself and that does not come in the way of my keep declaration... Is that first Dondi individual mentioned the father or the son? Maybe clarify. Very good work here. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) [2].

Crusaders (rugby union)

edit
Notified: Rugby Union, WT:NZ, FAR notice March 2021

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the history lacks info for the last 10 years comparatively, and uses sports journalese such as 'demolition'. It also lacks information on how the team came into being and the organising process for this. There is unsourced information in the statistics section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination for review. The prose is clumsy in places, especially an exceptionally long sentence of 93 words about the controversy over the name following the Christchurch mosque mass shootings. Coverage of events after 2017 seems weak compared with the rest of the article, and the records don't appear to be up to date. I don't think this meets the high standards currently expected for Featured Articles. Marshelec (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my previous comments, I find that there is content in the article that is too much like newspaper reporting of sports eg "The Crusaders managed to salvage some pride by narrowing the loss to a 47–38 finish." In places, the tone does not seem to meet the standards of WP:TONE. Another concern is that the lead is really hard work. The lead should be easy to read, and should encourage readers to follow on and read the main content of the article. My view is that there is too much detail in the lead, too many links, and not enough compelling story. The article is also quite long. There are long sections of lists that interrupt the flow through the article. I wonder if many of the lists would be best removed to one or more separate list articles, or if the article content should be re-arranged to put all the lists towards the end.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination for review. Rambling article, strongly in need of basic copy-editing and some sense of narrative. An example: a sequence of sentences strung together with "also": The Crusaders also hold the record for the fewest points scored in a game when they were defeated by the Highlanders 6–0 in 2009. They have also scored..." Somej (talk)
@Marshelec and Somej: If I did a complete review of this article, would you be willing to address my concerns? Although I can fix up prose and formatting concerns, I do not know enough about this subject to address content problems. My process is to read the article and edit the problems as I see them; if I have any questions or notice a large concern, I will post below and ask that a more knowledgeable editor make the appropriate changes (or respond with why it needs to remain as-is, if appropriate). This process would continue until I finish my review or think the article is too far away from the FA criteria to fix. Of course, others can join this process, too, as the more people helping to fix up the article, the better. Would you be interested in helping with the review? Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the necessary subject matter expertise about Rugby Union to do much more than comment on prose and readability in this article. However, I do think that standards for Featured Articles are worth upholding. If another editor is willing to undertake a comprehensive copy edit and rework throughout the article, I would be willing to provide acknowledgement and constructive feedback. However, I am not the right person to fill in gaps in content. Overall, I think that proceeding to a formal review is probably the best outcome for this article.Marshelec (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article as is stands doesn't cover some very major racism issues. See https://www.waateanews.com/waateanews/x_news/MjMzODI/Opinion/Rugby,-Racism-and-Xenophobia for example. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include coverage, organization and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. Short, stubby paragraphs and sections: '2017-present', 'Franchise area' and 'Development team'. Unsourced sections: 'Records and achievements', 'Current internationally capped players' and 'List of All Blacks'. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Poor prose in some sections, including the lede. Gaps and weaknesses in content, esp in '2017-present'. Article is long, and structure needs review - possibly split out Records and Achievements into separate article, or other structural change to improve readability.Marshelec (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - uncited text, sections for most recent events are not well updated, as well as other issues mentioned above. Hog Farm Talk 00:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC) [3].

Oldham

edit
Notified: Jza84, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, WikiProject UK geography, 2018-09-30, 2021-06-11

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised in 2018, which I do not think were resolved. Concerns included that the information was not updated and short paragraphs added after the FAC. I am also concerned with unsourced statements (including a paragraph in the Economy section) and the possible inclusion of non-notable information. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since then it has grown from 41kB prose with 13kB of references, to 49kB prose with 22kB of refs. PamD 12:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And page statistics show that almost half the total edits were done by Jza84, who appears not to have edited since 2015. PamD 12:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PamD are you interested in bringing this back to FA standards? If so, please ping me when it is ready for another review. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no experience of FA or FAR, so probably couldn't do it unless other editors were willing to help. What's the procedure from this point? I've addressed some unsourced paras on sport though not that big one about football in the economics section. Are there other specific points which need addressing? (Beyond the Demography section which clearly needs work.) PamD 19:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Forgot to ping. PamD 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: I am not a FAR co-ordinator, so please correct me if I get this wrong. At this point in the process, reviewers highlight their concerns with the article. Hopefully, editors will fix the concerns and bring the article back to FA standards. If you are willing to fix the article, I am willing to review it by posting questions or comments either here or on the article's talk page. After a quick skim of the article, I notice that the history section does not have post-2002 events, that paragraph in the economy section needs citations (or to be removed) and the "Notable people" sections needs more citations or for the references to be placed at the end of the sentence if it verifies the information. There are still short paragraphs throughout the article that I think can be better integrated into its previous or subsequent prose. Once the above is complete I will conduct a more thorough review. I also noticed some WP:PROMO language in my skim, which I can highlight further (or fix) in an in-depth review later. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD: are you still working on improving this article? Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've done quite a bit but will leave the rest to others. PamD 23:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: PamD did some excellent work on the article, but uncited text still remains and they are not continuing improvements, per above. Minimal edits to the article since mid-July. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as needing additional references. Repetition and over-focus on current MPs in the 'Parliamentary representation' section. Single sentence 'Politics' section: short sections should be merged or expanded. Short, stubby paragraphs in 'Economy' and 'Sports' sections. Unsourced content in 'Notable people' section. DrKay (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - aside from issues mentioned above, the sections for economy and transportation look to contain some dated material. Also, I'm having some questions about the structure here. Why is Oldham Athletic given a paragraph in the economy section, rather than the sport one? This needs some further work. Hog Farm Talk 00:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC) [4].

Karmichael Hunt

edit
Notified: User talk:SpecialWindler, User talk:rulesfan, WT:BIOG, Rugby league, Australian noticeboard, Rugby union, AFL project, New Zealand board talk page notification from April 2021

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because many problems have crept into this FA since it was promoted in 2007 when standards were much lower and also because at the time the subject had been a pro sportsperson for about 2 years and since then about 85% of his career has passed and he has jumped around into different sports (to AFL, to rugby union and back to the original sport rugby league) and those parts are not covered in as much depth and these parts have been added in a disjointed way, so there is more depth on the early career even though he also reached international level at rugby union. Further, the context is which he tried to change sports is not really explained properly (ie $$ because an established international player would not switch to a domestic-only sport that they are not familiar with except that the local sport pays much more $ and deliberately paid him as one of the best in the league as a publicity stunt even though he has no qualifications and obviously they switched for $$) and later when he switched back it is not explained why he did so. Also the bio is split up in sports formats, and this might not be the best given that he went RL -> RU -> AFL -> RU -> RL and often there is no explanation of the rationale for transition. Also there is no section on playing style, which is not really even explained at all for RU and changes in playing style/positions etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that RetiredDuke (talk · contribs) pointed out other structural and proportioning issues regarding the lead and personal life in the earlier notice Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and definite issues. This has probably the most confusing structure I've seen in a while. It just bounces around between different times, and there's no real connecting between the various subjects. There's a section titled 2008 Rugby League World Cup and beyond that doesn't contain anything from post-2009. The New South Wales Waratahs (2019-2020) section just consists of a single sentence saying that he signed a contract. What happened to him with the NSW club? It's unclear what exactly "In Cairns, Hunt had a breakthrough game against the Bendigo Bombers showing dramatic improvement" as its vague what "breakthrough game" and "dramatic performance" mean. "Hunt's coaching staff have speculated him to make an experimental shift into the midfield" - why is something from 2010 referred to as "have"? This article is both too thin for later events, and generally lacks cohesion throughout. Hog Farm Talk 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Minimal engagement. The article's structure is messy, as pointed out by Hog Farm, and there are numerous short paragraphs that need to be merged together or deleted. This article needs a complete rewrite to become chronological. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements. There's also no mention anywhere in the article as far as I can see of his girlfriends or wife, which raises comprehensiveness concerns. DrKay (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - newer events are not fully discussed, and the structure is extremely convoluted. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This article was promoted in 2007, when the young man was just in his third year as a professional player... and then he proceeded to have the most confusing sports career I've ever seen. He kept changing between football codes and leagues, and the article does not do a good job displaying all the info in a clear way. There's also plenty of unsourced content in here. Prime example of why it isn't ideal to invest on a FA on a living person that is just starting off their career. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [5].

Alzheimer's disease

edit
Notified: Original nominators have left the project; will notify WikiProject Medicine

Review section

edit

Sadly, this 2008 promotion has fallen out of date and I think it no longer stands up against the FA criteria. Specifically it can no longer be considered comprehensive and well-researched since the references are so old (in medicine time, which moves quickly). A few users have left comments calling out specific issues at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#FAR_needed and a subject-matter expert reviewed the article and gave section-by-section suggestions at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#Initial_suggestions_for_FAR. The consensus of all seems to be that a fairly heavy update will be needed to bring this back in line with criteria. Happy to hear others' thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who commented at the talk page @Buidhe, SkepticalRaptor, and SandyGeorgia: just so all are aware that we've started the FAR. Ajpolino (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; a once fine article, pretty well deteriorated that will require a HUGE effort to restore. And it seems our efforts are too often misspent these days. I saw that the most controversial FDA med approval EVER (Aducanumab ) was added to the article— the one that led to three experts resigning from the FDA advisory panel in protest, and yet the info was added to Wikipedia based on laysources. No MEDRS-compliant source discusses that med as there is no evidence it works and any mention in the AZ article is UNDUE — so we report laypress now, I guess. So, this article is well out of line with FA standards, and about ten years out of date. Sorry to see it go; sure hope someone will step up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the aducanumab reference. I think some mention of it could be due, but it would need to be quite heavily contextualized as controversial, and instead we have straight-faced citing of a press release. This will need fairly significant work; I tend to think we have an ethical obligation of sorts for an article like this to be up-to-date, regardless of whether it keeps the star on it or not, but unfortunately as Ajpolino notes we're so dependent on who we have, and the current cross-section of active meditors doesn't have many people with the right areas of interest to maintain that article. (If this were Early-onset Alzheimer's disease I'd be much more useful, but...) Vaticidalprophet 13:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The drug article will also need significant attention, as this had been one of the most highly controversial drug decisions EVER.
Shocking that the US FDA is now bowing to patient advocacy groups. We shouldn't be adding it to an article as a treatment when there are zero secondary sources that indicate it works. This is a wonderful example of how MEDRS can keep articles honest, especially in light of FDA and drug company malfunctioning and malfeasance. Due mention of the controversy should be added to the drug article, but I don't believe it has any place in the Alzheimer's article. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wild shot here … Lukelahood this article needs a complete rewrite, top to bottom … have you the interest, and more importantly, have you the time? I am sure if someone will take the lead, that others with FA experience will peek in, but someone has to come up with the latest highest quality secondary reviews to completely rewrite. The talk page has tons of information about the problems, as the article is years out of date, yet one of WP:MED’s highest pageviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'm pretty busy currently with medical school, board examinations, and residency applications, and I am not up to speed with Alzheimer disease beyond the basics... I can't research this enough to bring it up to date. I appreciate the thought though!Lukelahood (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my comments above. Ajpolino (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sadly. This needs a lot of work. Hog Farm Talk 16:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, particularly for lack of currency. It must be much improved, but I don't think it will be possible to bring to FA status until the situation with Aducanumab becomes clarified. I disagree with the view that proposed medicines, especially if approved by a major country, shouldn't be mentioned. We write for the general reader and the approval is no longer a purely medical issue, but one of policy. It should be mainly covered in its own article, but there has to be at least a link and I would say a summary. As there seems to be disagreement on this, getting FA approval for a new version may be impossible. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – first of all, I am not particularly familiar with how medicine articles are treated or their sourcing; in fact, I'm just here because I have been working on an article about a six-hour album series that portrays the stages of Alzheimer's. However, compared to other FAs—in particular, dementia with Lewy bodies—and considering that medicine articles apparently need up-to-date medical sources, this article is pretty much in a non-FA quality. I have made minor contributions to this article in Media, since this section IMO does not necessarily require medical citations, but I could be wrong. Is it just me or does it seem that most articles promoted before the 2010s now don't meet FACR anymore? Wetrorave (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Many editors that I respect have stated that this article should be delisted so I am mostly deferring to their judgment. The "Other hypotheses" and "Diagnosis" sections have update needed banners, which concerns me. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [6].

Prince's Palace of Monaco

edit
Notified: Giano, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject France, WikiProject European Microstates, WikiProject Monaco, WikiProject Italy, Diff of talk page notification 2021-05-23

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article (2007 promotion) for review because it falls short of the present-day featured article criteria on a number of fronts. Most fundamentally, large swaths of the article lack citations altogether, while many sources are of questionable reliability (e.g. heraldica.org, worldroots.com, etc.). There are also image sandwiching concerns, and the article often strays from the topic at hand to discuss tangential aspects of Monegasque dynastic history. These issues were first pointed out almost a decade ago, and there have been no edits to the article since I gave notice six weeks ago. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giano What exactly is that you feel “often strays?” The article is about the seat of a dynasty and the building is the architectural embodiment of that dynasty. It was also built by members of that dynasty to reflect their personalities and power. Therefore, the history of that dynasty is more than pertinent to the article. I see you are “proud to be an American” so perhaps the embodiment of dynasties in architecture has escaped you, but I can assure you they are very often inextricably bound together. Giano (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado Since this is an FA review, I will edit this article a bit more than I would if reviewing for an FA candidacy, and I may try to correct some of the points I raise here myself if nobody else jumps in.

  • Concerning "the article often strays from the topic at hand", the second and third paragraphs of the lead show why some digression may be necessary to present a complete picture of the palace in context and the reasons for how it has developed.
  • Concerning "large swaths of the article lack citations altogether", I have to agree. Although it is true that there is no reasonable doubt that the information can be verified, detailed callouts show where to start checking if there is a long list of citations, and help an interested reader decide, for example, which book among the citations to buy for further reading. I have updated the article so that any longer list of callouts in the References section will be clearer, to make the display consistent, and to present the print citations in alphabetical order of author surname.

    I've now separated the citation list, which was already in two parts for books and online sources, into separate sections Print sources and Online sources. I've updated the online citations for consistent source format and added archive links where necessary. The online citations are sorted alphabetically by title since most do not have authors and the corresponding callouts also start with the title. I hope this makes it easy to recognise where to look for each citation from a callout. --Mirokado (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • §Grimaldi fortress
    • This section still refers to illustration 6, which has been removed at some stage.
    • The subsequent illustrations will need to be renumbered.
      Since the image was removed by a bot, I have restored a different image. --Mirokado (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • §Absentee landlords and revolution (1662–1815)
    • This paragraph and its accompanying notes need clarification and probably corrections (@Giano: comments welcome):

      Honoré III married [[Maria-Caterina di Brignole-Sale|Catherine Brignole]]{{efn|Sometimes known as Catherine Brignole}} in 1757 and later divorced her. Before his marriage, Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.{{efn|Marie Catherine Brignole}} After her divorce Marie Brignole married [[Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé]], a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798.

      • I think the first wl and note can be replaced by "Maria Caterina Brignole", assuming that article is at the most recognisable name, and given:
      • that article says that her mother was Maria Anna Balbi, so we can replace the second note by content: "... his future mother-in-law Maria Anna Balbi."
      • While tidying up the citations I realised that "Marie Catherine Brignole" was a callout for an online citation, not a note, so I have updated the article accordingly:

        Honoré III married [[Maria-Caterina di Brignole-Sale|Catherine Brignole]]{{efn|Sometimes known as Catherine Brignole}} in 1757 and later divorced her. Before his marriage, Honoré III had been conducting an affair with his future mother-in-law.<ref>"Marie Catherine Brignole", ''Royalty Pages''.</ref> After her divorce Marie Brignole married [[Louis Joseph de Bourbon, prince de Condé]], a member of the fallen French royal house, in 1798.

        With the reference clear, it is not necessary to give the mother's name here. --Mirokado (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more later. --Mirokado (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I’m not. I suspect the whole page is a pack of lies; I’d delete the lot. The building and the family are so commonplace, they’re really so non-notable, that verification will be impossible. Giano (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [7].

Degrassi: The Next Generation

edit
Notified: Matthewedwards (diff here), Degrassi task force (diff here), WikiProject Television (diff here)

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it needs a reassessment. The article was nominated for FA in May 2008 by Matthewedwards and promoted to that status shortly after. I have spent the past four or so months improving, creating and expanding articles related to the Degrassi franchise including getting several articles about the earlier shows of the franchise to GA. I've fixed the lead and several things on the article already. I am not overly familiar with the FA criteria but I think it's clear that the article as it now stands may not meet it.

A lot of things on the article were referring to the show in present tense, which is inaccurate as it ended nearly six years ago, and which I've mostly fixed. I also feel the ratings section is way too huge and could probably be cut down, and the home media section refers to streaming platforms as "new media" when these services have been around for a while and are a dominant form of media as of late. Not only that, but the Degrassi task force seems to be completely inactive, and I am the only one that appears to be doing anything with articles about the subject aside from those who have helped me get articles reviewed and promoted, like Bilorv and Some Dude from North Carolina. I feel that because this is a featured article it needs greater attention so that it can continue to be a featured article. I would have expected the article of a show with as large of a fanbase as it continues to have to keep being updated and improved even after the end of it's run. ToQ100gou (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently doesn't follow proper MOS:TV section ordering. There needs to be something like a 'Premise', 'Plot' or 'Overview' section – then 'Episodes' (optionally, this can be folded into an 'Overview' section), then 'Cast', then 'Production', followed by 'Broadcast' and 'Reception' sections. Also, is the lede too long? On the "New media" thing, that section can simply be renamed 'Streaming' – in fact, as per MOS:TV, a separate 'Home media' section can easily be folded out of the 'Broadcast' section if that works better – that's the more common MOS:TV formatting these days. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, the article contains unsourced sentences about it's broadcast (such as: "In Australia, ABC1 broadcast the first three seasons in 2002 in its "ABC Kids" lineup and after that the storylines were deemed too adult for the late afternoon timeslot. The entire series was aired on ABC3 in 2010 in a primetime slot, also broadcast on Nickelodeon then later MTV.") and an unnecessary subsection entirely about the executive producers and funding for the show that could probably summed up somewhere else in the article, and various areas don't arguably follow WP:TONE. I'll try and rectify all of these problems myself and see where the article stands after that. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC A recent major editor of the article thinks it needs to go through this process, and I agree with them. If ToQ100gou is willing to bring this back to FA standards, I am happy to provide a more thorough assessment. I do, however, have a potential COI because I was classmates with several actors of the series, but I haven't spoken to them in over a decade and I don't think it will affect my ability to review. Some of my concerns are the use of "TV Feeds My Family" as a source as it is listing television ratings that I think can be provided by a more reputable source than a blog. Several sections are too long and need to be trimmed. The Production section includes way too much detailed information, and sections need to be removed or merged. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the television ratings section could probably be trimmed down significantly. It goes too much into detail about the ratings when it could be summed up in probably one or two small paragraphs. Things are still explained in present tense, although I've fixed some of them so far. The production section could definitely be trimmed down. The opening sequence section in particular is a bit too detailed without offering any critical commentary. Yes, the opening sequence of Next Generation is iconic and memorable to many, but where are sources that indicate such memorability? On the Degrassi Junior High article, we can see that show's opening sequence and theme song has been singled out for both scholarly and critical commentary for being unique among other openings of the same kind and thus warrants the detailed explanation it has. So Next Gen's can probably be trimmed to just the important information.
    My other issue is the usage of the term "new media", which after posting this reply I am going to fix. The "new media" refers to streaming platforms and other online services that have as of now been around for many years and are dominant. These sentences are also in the present tense, so they are going to be updated to reflect that it's the past. ToQ100gou (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [8].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

edit
Notified: Titoxd, Tarret, Derek.cashman, WP Tropical cyclones, WP Weather noticed April 16

Review section

edit

Nominating this one, as it is one of the older FAs on the WP:URFA/2020 list that has not been checked yet. This one currently fails WP:FACR #1c by a pretty large margin - there is a vast quantity of scholarly literature about Katrina, yet all but one sentence of the body of this article is sourced solely to the National Hurricane Center. Additional scholarly sources need worked into this article for it to meet FACR #`1c. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as noted in nomination, very far from a representative survey of literature. CMD (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - severe issues with WP:FACR #1c identified in April, with no engagement or improvement. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure I agree that there are severe issues with 1C, when this article is designed to talk about the Meteorological History of Katrina and not the impacts or warnings issued by local weather forecast offices. This means that stuff like how it developed, where it went, its peak intensity etc is included but not really stuff like how people prepared for the storm. As a result, I am not so certain that there are many sources, which dont repeat what the NHC who as the RSMC for the Atlantic basin said about the system's MH.Jason Rees (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jason Rees: - I'm not quite sure that that statement is accurate. While I'm not a hurricane expert, I've skimmed through this source, which is an entire scholarly article on secondary eyewall formation in Katrina. This scholarly article contains significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina. Or how about "Hurricane Katrina (2005). Part I: Complex Life Cycle of an Intense Tropical Cyclone". "Multiscale Processes Leading to Supercells in the Landfalling Outer Rainbands of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" may be relevant, as well (although I don't quite understand the hurricane stuff enough to say that with certainty). And there's much more like this. The NHC is a valuable resource, but Katrina was so significant that the weather stuff was analyzed in scholarly fashion afterwards, so to essentially only use the NHC and ignore after-the-fact analysis. It's also significant to note that all of the sources are from within 5 months of the storm (latest is December 2005), so not only is it over-reliant on a single source, but it is also only from sources almost contemporaneous with the event, which means that any after-the-fact research into the formation of this storm is not reflected. This is a vast distance from FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hog Farm: Yes Katrina is significant enough to have had its MH analysed in detail by secondary sources, but I am not sure that I see much in those sources that is much worth putting in that isn't derived from NHC and convince me that this article fails 1C. The MH is designed to talk about how the system developed using facts and not speculation like Galactic Cosmic Rays playing a part in the formation. The first source presented talks about Katrina going through an eyewall replacement cycle as it made landfall on the US, but is very very technical and goes way to in-depth for this article. The second is not a significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina but speculates that Galactic Cosmic Rays played a part in the formation, which is one of a number of possible factors - another could be you being out in Africa during 2005 and playing with the sand. The third could possibly have a few bits that could go in but most is derived from NHC, while the fourth talks about supercells which would only be relevant to this article if we were talking about the tornadoes that Katrina spawned in depth but we arent. Yes the last article used in the article is from 2005 but is that really so bad, when we consider that the MH is the story of Katrina itself and not the warnings or impacts. I will admit that the article needs some work to get it up to today's standards, but I don't think the sources lacking are as bad as you make out unless we want to make this article so technical that the average reader wont be able to follow or understand it. Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess frankly we just have to agree to disagree. To me, a bunch of sources self-identifying as advisories and written during the time the storm was going on are for all practical purposes primary sources, and shouldn't be relied on as heavily as they are relied on here. It's almost (but not quite) like just using the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion to source my current FAC Second Battle of Newtonia because most secondary sources rely very heavily on those Official Records. I guess we just have to disagree here. Pinging Chipmunkdavis who voted to delist earlier, in case this discussion changes their mind, but I'm generally have the opposite view as you as to the appropriateness of just sourcing to NHC, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Hog Farm: As i said in my last reply, the article needs some work and I don't disagree with you that the advisories are primary sources for all essential purposes. However, my general view is that where they are available the advisories should be used to tell the story of tropical cyclones, as they help reduce the reliance on the TCR and other sources that may or may not be available. In the case of this article, most of the advisories cited are used to cite stuff that happened operationally and that the primary source used here is NHC's TCR which was published after the system in December 2005 and last updated by NHC in 2011.Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I guess my vision for adding other sources would be to use the NHC as sort of the skeleton of the article, and then flesh it out in places with other stuff. For instance, if maybe some of the eyewall formation article is nontechnical enough, it can be used to supplement NHC information about the eyewall (it seems to me that the eyewall material probably wouldn't be hurt through expanding)? Obviously, if the one with the galactical rays is crackpot, it shouldn't be given any weight here. Would "Convective-Scale Downdrafts in the Principal Rainband of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" be useful for these purposes (noting that only part of that article is really in-depth as to Katrina specifically)? Proquest seems to have some decent material for hurricanes, and it's freely available to most editors through WP:TWL. I think the sources exist to supplement the NHC data, while still using the NHC to guide the structure and backbone of the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - Work's been going on, but there's still an entire uncited paragraph in the second and third landfalls section, and it's still almost entirely sourced to contemporaneous reports/advisories, which I still view as somewhat problematic as per above, but others have split opinions on. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since Hog Farm's comment above, there has been minimal work on this article, and there is still an uncited paragraph. Is anyone still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Still sourced almost entirely to government reports while neglecting academic literature on this storm. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't use the government reports, but in order to meet FACR #1c, there's also going to have be use of the academic literature to support the government reports. We can't just ignore a sizable portion of the literature on this topic because it isn't as convenient. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements include "likely existed". The reader is referred to another wikipedia article in support of the claim "in excess of $1 billion", but the claim there is $70 billion, which makes $1 billion look under-estimated. Besides, using other articles as sources or directly referring to them in running text ("see A. N. Other article") indicates structural problems or poor prose. If the other article is worth looking at or related, it should be wiki-linked in the usual way. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Concerns remain on unsourced statements and reliance on government reports. No significant edits since June. Z1720 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) [9].

Joseph Szigeti

edit
Notified: K. Lastochka, WP Biography, WP Classical music, WP Hungarian culture, WP Hungary, WP Romania, noticed in early March

Review section

edit

This early 2008 promotion does not meet current FA sourcing expectations. There is significant uncited text, including almost the entire New music section. Additionally, multiple sections are sourced entirely to almost entirely to the subject's autobiography, which is also concerning from a sourcing perspective. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist from FA status as per nomination. The article is also unsatisfactory in that it includes extensive comments of a WP:ESSAY-nature, reflecting the editor's views but not substantiated by third-party sources (e.g. "This comment illustrates well the general nature of Szigeti's reception by both critics and fellow musicians", "Perhaps Szigeti's most fruitful musical partnership was with his friend Béla Bartók", etc.)--Smerus (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I know that articles aren't supposed to be "delisted" or "kept" at this stage, but this might be one of the ones we can put through the process more quickly. It would perhaps require a near-complete rewrite and basically a complete source overhaul. Aza24 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, accelerated process - per above comments, the sourcing on this one will require a top-to-bottom rewrite, so this one is likely a good candidate to accelerate. So much work would need to be done that a fresh FAC would probably be the best route. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC) [10].

Melodifestivalen

edit
Notified: author is retired, WP:SWEDEN, WT:EURO diff for talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of lack of sourcing as discussed on the FAR notice Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC) [11].

University of California, Riverside

edit
Notified: Amerique, [12] WikiProject Higher education, [13]

Review section

edit

Hog Farm brought up issues with this article back in March 2021. Their main concerns were uncited material in the notable alumni and other person section and dated sourcing for sections such as Research, Student life, and Housing. There are also some sandwiching issues with images, a lack of alt text, and a possible over dependence on primary sources. ~ HAL333 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced most of the alumni section, resolved the sandwiches, and added alt text to the images. That's about as much effort as I'm willing to put in, but I hope someone else carries this forward; this page isn't in as dire shape as some of the others that were delisted sooner. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being that I spent about a year at this university, and that I might know my way around resources related to Southern California topics. I could try to at least find links to replace a handful of the dead ones. However, I cannot guarantee it would be enough to maintain the article up to FA standards. It would be a shame to see this article demoted.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: If you're willing to put in the work, everyone else will help let you know what the remaining issues are and it should be possible to save this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2021&oldid=1041024567"