Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2023

< 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) 1:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC) [1].

M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)

edit
Notified: Imzadi1979, WP US Roads, noticed in December 2021

I have significant original research concerns with this article. "This routing was moved to bypass the city in 1964 when iron ore mining activity destabilized a portion of the M-35 routing southeast of town" has a non-working source link, but it seems to be a document similar to this, which does not support anything relating to iron ore mine destabilization. "Previously, it ran along Greenwood Street and North Lake Road and met US 41/M-28 in the West Ishpeming neighborhood of Ishpeming Township" - cited source can be accessed here, and I'm not finding any references to Greenwood Street or Ishpeming in there. "Arch Street is the access to Negaunee High School" is not supported by the source, which appears to actually be saying that the affected section of Teal Lake Avenue is the access. (see here, as url in the article is deceased). "From this point on, Bus. M-28 has not shared its routing with any other state trunklines." is utterly unsourced. And lastly, "Occasionally, more recent maps use this older numbering to label the highway" shouldn't be sourced to just a single map from '06. I think Talk:Ontario Highway 802/GA1 is a good example of the problems of using only a single map to support the existence of supposed route marking. Hog Farm Talk 22:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not commenting on the issues yet but I found the rhetoric in this edit summary unprofessional and over the top. I am especially troubled that this is coming from someone who represents the FA process. --Rschen7754 17:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a little silly, but I think it's not right to characterize it as "unprofessional" - this is Wikipedia, not The Super Serious Government Organization Of Super Seriousness. There's nothing wrong with a bit of levity.
    (For the record, I did look at the issues, but wasn't able to find additional sources in my admittedly short search for them, so I did not leave a comment.) casualdejekyll 17:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't find it silly if it was my article being nominated. --Rschen7754 17:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that wasn't a good decision on my part. But it's also not an incorrect description of the article. And frankly, I'm doubting that this article is even notable. See WP:GEO, which is policy and says The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. As none of the source actually say anything significant about this highway, it should probably be merged into M-28 (Michigan highway)#Business loops. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC the issues raised by Hog Farm have not been addressed. I am also not persuaded that the topic is notable. (t · c) buidhe 09:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I had left a comment on this already, and I apologize that it wasn't saved apparently.
    • This nomination dropped on a holiday. To that end, that holiday fell on a Sunday, meaning it was observed on the Monday. Thus, libraries were closed until January 3.
    • Secondly, I had too leave town on January 3, so I am both away from my personal research materials and the local library for a few more days.
    • And finally, I would appreciate if egregious edit summary would be redacted as I personally felt very insulted by it and more importantly feel as it poisoned this entire process from the start. Frankly, why should any author want to participate in what should be a collegial review when faced with that level of vitriol and animus ab initio?
    Imzadi 1979 → 18:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the issue here - This is a subset of a notable topic that warrants inclusion due to its parent. Is there an actual issue with the content that warrants the removal of the star? - Floydian τ ¢ 17:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move to FARC - issues are being resolved. Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Of the various concerns listed in the nomination statement, all but the single unsourced sentence has been resolved. I searched for additional sources in a couple newspaper archives but didn't find anything that seemed useful (just announcements of lane closures and paving), so I reckon that it's as comprehensive as it can be. Notability is outside the purview of FAR so that would have to be decided elsewhere and I don't intend on going down that road.
      So I think the only major thing is the use of the referencing of "map that doesn't have feature"+"map from next year that does have feature", which was recently challenged at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)/1. I can understand both arguments and am too burned out in general to try to weigh in on that. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • How does one prove a negative? But then you take that sentence out and suddenly the article is opposed for not being "comprehensive". --Rschen7754 16:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If you like, I can cite every paper state highway map from 1969 through 2022. Before you scoff, I own one copy of every edition from 1958 to the present, and they are all sitting neatly in 3-inch notebooks here on my shelf, and I have digital copies of the maps from the 1919 through 1999 sitting on my hard drive. I assure you, they've all been consulted. Imzadi 1979 → 17:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That research and citation technique has been used in many articles for many years, including its acceptance in a few dozen extant FAs. Imzadi 1979 → 18:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • As one who raised issues with of misuse of maps at the cited GAR above, I'd like to comment this case is a better use of maps than the GAR case cited above. The offending statement at the GAR was (I say was, as I fixed it) x happened between year1 and year2, cited to a maps with copyright dates of year1 and year2. I pointed out that isn't a valid use of a map as the copyright date printed on the map usually is not the same as the date the map was drafted. To use the map in that way you'd have to know when it was drafted. Making matters worse, IIRC they were both commercial maps, and commercial map publishers are more prone to include features on the map they will anticipate will be finished by the time the map is placed onto store shelves, but weren't actually finished when the map was drafted. So there's two potential sources of error using maps that way. However, in this case FAR case, a single date is cited to two maps, one drafted early in the year and one drafted later in the year, and both published by the state DOT. (Which does not have the same incentive to try to extend the shelf life of a map by drawing incomplete features as complete the way commercial map publishers do.) As such, while I understand the raised eyebrows, and maybe if it were me I'd just say "by [year]" or "cerca [year]" or "during the [year]'s" just to be safe, I don't think the two cases are the same.Dave (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        From the 1920s up through, and including, 1957, the Michigan State Highway Department published 2–4 or more maps per year, settling into a spring and fall issue pattern for the last decade and a half or so. Cover art and dates changed between the semi-annual editions, and none of them bear copyright notices. Starting in 1958, the department moved to annual editions and marked them for copyright protection. They skipped 1959, desiring to move to biennial editions to save costs, but public outcry led to a requirement from the state legislature for annual updated editions. (Of note, many new freeway segments were opening each year from the 1950s through the 1970s, making a map go out of date quickly.) Some editions have specific dates noted as to their currency date, but otherwise they're current as of the January of the printed year per department practices. Thus, a change between the 1968 and 1969 maps happened in calendar year 1968. Where it is possible to source a change to a news article, that will be done since that would narrow the opening of a new segment of highway to a specific date, not a specific year. Imzadi 1979 → 20:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Imzadi1979 and Moabdave: - thanks for explaining the difference between these Michigan maps and the situation at the NC GAR - it is clearly a different situation from that discussion. I'm not super concerned about the single uncited sentence. I'd like to see what some of the other FAR regulars think - @Buidhe, Z1720, and Extraordinary Writ:. I'm taking a step back from wikipedia for awhile to focus on some work stuff, so I haven't been able to give the article a close look and will have to step away from this discussion for an to-be-determined time. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754, Imzadi1979, and Moabdave: I see editing has slowed down at the article; where do things stand? Is it time for others to have a look, or is there more to be done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: as far as I'm concerned, I'm just waiting for any additional comments/suggestions/etc. for improvements to the article. If there are none, I think this FAR should be closed. Imzadi 1979 → 19:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like an extreme level of precision for the lead, and that precise number is not found in the body. Can this be added to the body, and the lead be less precise/more general?

  • Business M-28 (Bus. M-28) is a state trunkline highway serving as a business route that runs for 4.841 miles (7.791 km) through the downtown districts of Ishpeming and Negaunee in the US state of Michigan.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: agreed about rounding, but it's in the body. Look at the bottom row of the junction list table. By definition, the milepost of the terminus is the length of the whole highway. Imzadi 1979 → 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: also, it's already in the body prose in the last sentence of the route description's penultimate paragraph: "The total length of Bus. M-28 is 4.873 miles (7.842 km)." Should that be rounded as well? Imzadi 1979 → 19:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a ctrl-f on 4.841 and didn't find it ... probably because of difference between 4.841 and 4.873 ??? What is that ? Anyway, I don't care about excess precision in body, but feel it is too much for the lead. Fix however you think best. That's all I've got; please revert anything I may have messed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something was weird then as the four values should have matched (lead, infobox, body sentence and junction list).
Anyway, the lead is rounded, while the full value from the source is in the other threee location. Yes, highways are really measured to the thousandth of a mile in many states, which might sound overly precise until you realize that's 5.28 feet or almost a two-yard increment, so it's not "excess precision". Given that rights-of-way are measured and surveyed in feet, they could be slightly more precise and merely rounded to the thousandth of a mile. Thank you for the quick review. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for a road article, that level of precision in the body makes sense to me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm pls give this a look when you have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will today, but it probably won't be for another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so named because it was once a rail line into downtown Negaunee" - not supported by any sources in that paragraph
  • Digging around on [2] makes it look like more recent traffic counts are available. For instance, if I'm reading it right, there were 6,467 AADT at Teal Lake Avenue in 2021

Beyond those two, I don't think I have further major concerns related to the FA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per HF above, I am OK with Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: - just to make sure you saw that. I'm also okay with close without FARC, as the AADT numbers in the article are still fairly recent and I'm not going to advocate for it to remain in FAR over that single clause. Hog Farm Talk 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: according to the nomination form for the Marquette and Western Railroad Negaunee Freight Depot, which is just about 120 feet west of the Rail Street overpass over Silver Street, rail service to the depot was discontinued in 1965, and "Rail Street runs down the south side of what was originally a wide railroad grade with tracks that ran on both sides of the depot building. The tracks were removed when the grade was converted to a city street." There are other sources, such as the dedication plaque for the bridge itself that note that it was built in 1936 by the federal government and the State Highway Department with the cooperation of the Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic Railroad, the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad, and the City of Negaunee. Were it just a city street back then, the railroads would not have "cooperated". I tweaked the wording slightly lest someone object to the proposition that a city street built over a former rail line and then named Rail Street was named because of the rail line. I also added the explicit citation to the nomination form, and I trust that those actions are appropriate to absolve any concerns there.
I can look over adjusting traffic data, but if the 2019 counts are good enough for now, let's conclude this review. Imzadi 1979 → 20:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 2019 counts are good enough for now - the FAR's definitely ready to close. Hog Farm Talk 01:35, 3 February 2023 (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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC) [3].

90377 Sedna

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

Review section

edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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.[6] Should we add that as an additional source?
  • Regarding the lack of objects in Sedna's vicinity, I think the claim at least requires a reference that says what it actually means. I am uncomfortable with solely relying on your (reasonable) interpretation, Sportsfan77777, especially since the sentence was added when my interpretation would have been purely hypothetical.
  • Caltech researchers Konstantin Batygin and Brown have hypothesised the existence of a giant planet in the outer Solar System, nicknamed Planet Nine. - The numbers in that section (mass, orbital period) don't reflect the latest results by Batygin&Brown, compare the Planet Nine article. Should we update this?
  • To be a dwarf planet, Sedna must be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It is bright enough, and therefore large enough, that this is expected to be the case. - The reference for this is (Brown, 2008), which is fairly old, and determining whether something is in hydrostatic equilibrium was thought to be easier at the time. Brown's "dwarf planet census" seems to have fallen out of favour recently, because it is no longer in line with scientific consensus. See Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_there_some_reason_why_we_still_keep_Brown's_values? for a discussion. It turns out that this is complicated (for a recent related discussion of the possible shortfalls of what "hydrostatic equilibrium" means, see Talk:List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Is_the_Moon_in_hydrostatic_equilibrium?). An additional problem is that the size at which an object is expected to be in HE depends on its composition. In 2019, Grundy et al. found Sedna to likely be in HE, but also that many objects with diameters of 400-1000 km (Sedna: ca.1000 km) have densities that don't seem to allow for them to be in HE.[1] Compare the discussion at List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Grundy_et_al.’s_assessment. Sedna's density remains unknown.
  • and several astronomers have called it one - That's nice, but none of the cited references is younger than 10 years. We can add Grundy from 2019, but it would be nice to have additional recent sources. I'll see if I can find any. Maybe someone can have a look, too?
  • What about the addition of an "observations" section? I see one reply above that argues against it, and one on the article talk page that is in favour of the addition. Renerpho (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Renerpho: it would be nice to have additional recent sources. User:Double sharp found several from this year and last: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Though the 400k limit in the 2nd is obsolete. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Grundy, W.M.; Noll, K.S.; Buie, M.W.; Benecchi, S.D.; Ragozzine, D.; Roe, H.G. (December 2019). "The mutual orbit, mass, and density of transneptunian binary Gǃkúnǁʼhòmdímà ((229762) 2007 UK126)" (PDF). Icarus. 334: 30–38. doi:10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.037. S2CID 126574999. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-07.
I've updated the Planet Nine numbers and made some other small emendations. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concerns raised above have been addressed. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs closer scrutiny, samples only from only looking at one small section:

Calculations in celestial dynamics stay valid, so the 2011 paper didn't go stale or anything. I added a summary of a more recent study. That particular Forbes contributor is an astrophysicist, so it's probably fine. XOR'easter (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at other sections, it doesn't get better. "The trans-Neptunian planet hypothesis has been advanced in several forms by a number of astronomers, including Rodney Gomes and Patryk Lykawka. One scenario involves perturbations of Sedna's orbit by a hypothetical planetary-sized body in the Hills cloud.". The only mention of the Hills Cloud in the entire article ... what is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.
I really don't think the article is in that bad shape. Rushing to demote it just compounds the problem of having too many astronomy articles simultaneously at FAR; I was almost optimistic that we'd get them all finished, but elevating the priority of the least-trafficked of the three articles just makes it harder for the few available volunteers to progress in an orderly way. XOR'easter (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, trust you on this, but concerned that you are being overworked :). So, instead of Move to FARC, I suggest we take more time to make sure this is OK before we let it out of here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent scholarly sources to check:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:: Personally I find it a little insulting that you argue that there's so little interest when I've spent the last 18 months breaking my back trying to get Ceres re-featured and you've cited this very FAR as a reason why it's taking so long. I am prepared to work on this, if and when Ceres is promoted. Serendipodous 16:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no, I just don't have the time to clean up the massive amount of issues here, even if I could. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to give me a list, I'd be prepared to fix them. Serendipodous 13:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy's left a number of comments above, not all of which seem to have been addressed. For instance, the Forbes contributor piece is still cited in the article. Hog Farm Talk 13:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, removed. What else? Serendipodous 16:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to go through all of the comments made by Renerpho and Sandy above, see if they've been addressed, and if not, either note why you disagree with them or make the changes in the article. Hog Farm Talk 13:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said somewhere above, I think that particular Forbes contributor piece was actually OK, but I won't quarrel with its being removed. XOR'easter (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Serendipodous my apologies for missing the comment above (in the FAR section) while I was on vacation, and your point is taken. Are you still planning to engage here ? If so, where do we stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiSandyGeorgia. I have no idea since I cannot tell what's been resolved and what hasn't. Serendipodous 16:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will look back through and highlight anything above unaddressed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: Have you had a look? Serendipodous 21:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry ... I have not had time yet ... I mentioned several weeks ago that I had a terribly busy November ahead, and I will catch up as soon as I get a free moment (not sure when that will be, barely keeping up with my watchlist now ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly reviewing my comments above from July 11, it appears that XOR'easter addressed all of them but I see no answer on whether the list I included of new scholarly sources has been considered. Please let me know, and then I will do a re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the links you proivded and they either plan a hypothetical trip to Sedna, or simply mention Sedna without elaboration, Serendipodous 21:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Serendipodous ... good enough for me. What I meant about undefined AU is that we never define the acronym, and I can't figure out how to add it here because of the convert ...
  • orbit; as of 2022 it is 84 astronomical units (1.26×1010 km) from the Sun, ....
That first occurrence of the words astronomical units wants to have an AU after it so we know what AU is later ... I don't know how to fix that. I will try to catch up by this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hot-rodded it. Serendipodous 09:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt and have a look. There is a problem with dupe links on Astronomical units and sednoids (and others) that I can't fix ... AU is never defined but I don't know how to address this because of the convert, and this results in a dupe link (along with others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AU is linked in the infobox under "Perihelion". I think duplinks in the infobox are ok (certainly the duplinks policy does). I've removed a few that I cought. Can't get that script to load though. Serendipodous 22:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: Sorry to prod, but you started this FARC, against the advice of more than one person, including yourself at one point. I'm doing what you're asking but I can't do this without you. Serendipodous 09:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FAR was started by Renerpho, not me ... the move to FARC is inconsequential. I will get to this as soon as I have time ... I mentioned long ago that I had a dreadful November ahead ... and this article needs a top-to-bottom read-through, which can't be done quickly. Has anyone pinged Renerpho to see if they are now satisfied ? If others are satisfied, Keep declarations need not wait for me, but I'm not going to lodge a keep until I've read the whole thing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reiterating my earlier !vote. I would be more specific and comment on why the issues that led the article to end up at FARC aren't actually a problem; however, reading the above discussion, I don't understand why the article was moved to FARC to begin with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I. Serendipodous 11:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renerpho this is your nomination; could you please do the followup? I have left a lengthy list on talk; this is not my nomination, the article is not ready for a Keep, and I don't have time to continue engaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: there was a recent requested move, closed, but there remains an underlying dispute about article content. Resolving this matter will require more sustained attention from more FAR participants. See my review on the FAR talk page, linked above. Hog Farm raised this matter in May, and it remains an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to FAR talk, there are two threads on article talk. There is no consensus on whether to describe Sedna as a dwarf planet, and the article is not yet stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion continues on article talk, with no proposal (yet) to resolve the ambiguity in the article. The first line of the lead unambiguously states in Wikivoice that Sedna is a dwarf planet. The Classificiation section makes no such statement, nor is it found anywhere in the article; rather, the Classification section concludes that some astronomers have called it a Dwarf, while it has other classifications from other institutions or bodies.
If participants cannot select a methodology for hammering out an agreement on how to come to consensus, the article will remain un-ready to be Kept at FAR. (Meanwhile, I have not heard from Renerpho as to followup on the list I left on FAR talk.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead accurately summarized the body. No serious sources were present (or have been offered) that actually dispute the dwarf planet label. The other classifications (Kuiper belt object, etc.) overlap with "dwarf planet" rather than contradicting it. I found this clear enough from the text already, but Double sharp has revised that section to make the point more evident, and I think it's good now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have sources for File:Sednoid apparent magnitudes.png, File:Sednoid orbits.png, and File:EightTNOs.png. The last one has a "newer" (still unsourced) version on Commons with different objects (File:EightTNOS new.png): which one should we use? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the first two from JPL orbital parameter data. I helped make [:File:EightTNOs.png] at some point, just taking estimated diameters and scaling images. Each body's pixel diameter could be tested compared to the most recent estimates if any have changed. That's a simple thing to do. Tom Ruen (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply @Tomruen, thanks for the information: problem solved then. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "newer" version is from 2009, so it's actually much older and heavily outdated. Varuna is unlikely to be a dwarf planet according to current knowledge, and it's not one of the largest known TNOs anymore. Double sharp (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR has been going for eight months. The nominator was active for four days, and hasn't posted since. It has been nearly a month since anyone raised any objections. Can we close this as Keep now please? Serendipodous 20:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I performed a cleanup pass through the article, clarifying a few points, refining the lead, making the citations more consistent, adding alt text to the images, and including a "Further reading" section for some recent publications. It seems reasonably up to date and up to snuff, FA-wise. That may change when the 2022 JWST observations of Sedna are reported.[11] Praemonitus (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and give this a read-through later this week. Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous and Praemonitus: - I've left a brief list of comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/90377 Sedna/archive1#HF comments. Hog Farm Talk 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep if Praemonitus and Serendipodous are fine with it; I don't feel confident to judge the currency/accuracy of the subject-matter specific stuff. Hog Farm Talk 02:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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) 5:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) [12].

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act

edit
Notified: Prioryman, WP Medicine, WP Scientology (inactive), WP Alaska, WP Politics, WP Psychology, WP Law, WP Alternative Views, talk page notice 2022-11-20

Review section

edit

This 2007 promotion does not meet FA standards. Concerns outlined on talk on 2022-11-20 include comprehensiveness, uncited text, overquoting, unattributed opinion, possible OR, and minor MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC concerns still not addressed (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - needed improvements have not occurred. Hog Farm Talk 14:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2023 (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) 5:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) [13].

George F. Kennan

edit
Notified: A. S. Brown, Nishkid64, 172 (banned), A455bcd9, WP Bio, WP International relations, WP Politics, talk page notice 2022-12-09

Review section

edit

This is a 2005 promotion that is not maintained, and has considerable (contentious) uncited text (suggestive that deeper POV problems may be lurking), as well as MOS issues and HarvRef errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three recent sources: listed, but not used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (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) 5:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC) [14].

Satyajit Ray

edit
Notified: Shmitra (last edit was 2009), LM150, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject India, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Screenwriters, 2022-10-22

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous unsourced statements in the article and unused references. Secondary concerns include missing information in references (mostly author names in articles) and a long Careers section that can be more effectively formatted. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will need a herculean effort to salvage the star but I am up for it, if somebody collaborates. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have rather a lot on my plate at the moment and don't want to make commitments I cannot keep, but I thought it worth mentioning that we have a lot of very active editors writing about Indian films; perhaps pinging them individually may help. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia. Any editors that you think can be pinged and made aware of this FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Utcursch and Cyphoidbomb: are the ones I'm familiar with, but I'd look for experienced and active contributors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Participants. I could do this myself but not today, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam:, interested to collaborate? I can try to rope in some others also. Can start slowly.Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian movies FA writers produce some of the worst claptrap there is on WP. They appear at each others' FACs and give easy passes. Doing it for years. Movies and media FAs are poor quality to begin with. This is a vital article, it shouldn't be inflicted to prose honed on Bollywood's bimbos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Between @TrangaBellam, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Dwaipayanc, and Shshshsh:, there is enough experience and writing history to do a good job. Dwaipayan is the nominator of Pather Panchali. My only disagreement with him there is the fragment: "establishing Ray as one of the country's most distinguished filmmakers." for he is one of the world's greats, a "giant of world cinema," as the NPR tribute—that I heard on the car radio on the eve of his academy award—put it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if @Ragib: is around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Titodutta: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And also @JohnWickTwo, Grapple X, and Casliber: whom I remember from the Kurosawa FAC, which to my abiding shame, I never got around to improving enough with my comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for the nomination.The article certainly need improvement to maintain FA status. We are in the initial/pre-initial (!) stage to plan a collaborative effort to improve it. This project would need a lo...ng time. That's why I am writing this message. I'd expect 6 months, perhaps more. Let's see how we move along. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwaipayanc: I am fine with this remaining at FAR as long as the co-ords are OK with it and improvements continue. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (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) 4:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [15].

Battle of Schellenberg

edit
Notified: Raymond Palmer, Gog the Mild, WP Milhist, WP Germany, talk page notice, 2022-12-2 and 2023-01-01

Review section

edit

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor has not edited since 2007. As detailed on talk, there are sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose/style. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2023 (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) 5:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC) [16].

Ernest Emerson

edit
Notified: Mike Searson (retired), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Blades, WikiProject Martial arts, WikiProject Business, 2022-11-13

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is very little post-2015 information. I am also concerned that this article reads more like a promotional piece for his knives rather than a biography of this person's life. There are also many sources that are listed as citations that are not used as inline references, and an extensive "Further reading" list, which makes me believe that this article is no longer comprehensive. I am also concerned with the short length of the lede. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include neutrality, sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2023 (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) 1:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC) [17].

Hurricane Gloria

edit
Notified: Hurricane Noah, Fieari, Spangineer, Verrai, Titoxd, Hurricanehink, Dylan620, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Pennsylvania, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, diff for talk page notification (2021-12-01)

Review section

edit

The issues raised initially in the article talk page were inadequate coverage and (in)consistent source formatting. There have been edits since, but it's not yet marked as "satisfactory" in WP:URFA/2020A. Furthermore, I've yet to see edits mostly addressing or resolving the issues. George Ho (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look and see what I can do with Gloria in the next few days, as I play with Hurricane Nora....Jason Rees (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the intent is to work towards a save, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been looking at Gloria over the last few days and there is just too much missing for me to try and work it in the limited time I have. As for the CCI check, I believe that most of the sources are taken from NOAA and are thus in the public domain but may need attribution.Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes .. but the CCI check involves also looking for WP:CWW, which is quite time consuming! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2023 (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/February_2023&oldid=1141461654"