Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 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) 5:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC) [1].

Elizabeth II

edit
Notified: Rockhead126, WP Bio, talk page notice 2022-09-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are serious problems with comprehensiveness and misuse of sources and there seems to be no appetite among regular editors to fix them. John (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post some sample issues below.

  • Comprehensiveness: We skate across the awkwardness of her second son paying out a millions-of-pounds settlement to a woman he claims he never met; yet we omit to mention that she paid at least some of the settlement for him? Why's that?
  • Factual accuracy: "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom remained consistently high, as did her personal popularity." sourced in part to this source, which has the title "Poll: Dramatic decline in support for monarchy in decade since Diamond Jubilee". This gives the appearance of dishonesty or at least bias.
  • Neutrality: "The number of her realms varied over time as territories gained independence and some realms became republics" while this statement as written is true, as countries formerly part of the Empire became independent members of the Commonwealth, then often became republics, I think the choice of "vary" is somewhat deceptive as it implies that the number of her subjects went anything but down. If I am wrong and the number of subjects went up, that would also be interesting. This just seems very weaselly and dishonest as it stands.
  • Neutrality, again: This is how the article covers the death of Diana:

    In August 1997, a year after the divorce, Diana was killed in a car crash in Paris. Elizabeth was on holiday with her extended family at Balmoral. Diana's two sons, Princes William and Harry, wanted to attend church, so Elizabeth and Philip took them that morning. Afterwards, for five days the royal couple shielded their grandsons from the intense press interest by keeping them at Balmoral where they could grieve in private, but the royal family's silence and seclusion, and the failure to fly a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace, caused public dismay. Pressured by the hostile reaction, Elizabeth agreed to return to London and address the nation in a live television broadcast on 5 September, the day before Diana's funeral. In the broadcast, she expressed admiration for Diana and her feelings "as a grandmother" for the two princes. As a result, much of the public hostility evaporated.

    "Dismay"? Is that the best word to use? Here's an interesting source which could be used to improve this. Indeed, there is no shortage of good sources, if there was a willingness to rewrite this as a normal neutral Wikipedia article.
  • Over-comprehensiveness: *"While touring Manchester as part of her Jubilee celebrations, Elizabeth made a surprise appearance at a wedding party at Manchester Town Hall, which then made international headlines." Given what she did for a living, almost everything she did would generate headlines. What was so special about this?

(more detailed version at Talk:Elizabeth II#Article quality, where there has been a bit of agreement about the problems but no great willingness to address them, hence this process.) John (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think this article still had plently of room to be worked out in its talk page, as editors there did discuss with John in a thread more than 3,000 words long. There was a suggestion to wait out the page rush due to the death of the Queen (its viewership spiked from an average of 60,000 views a day to more than EIGHT MILLION —wow!).
Around 5 October the views came back to normal. After that, on 9 October, John asked if there was progress in the issues John listed. I think it would have been good if there was an attempt to continue working on the issues. Piecemeal in their separate subsections for order and legibility's sake. Then, start the countdown of three weeks to bring it to FAR from there if things didn't work out.
But I will point out that I support delisting the page from FA, because it doesn't comply with item 1.e. of the Featured ARticle criteria, stability. Just in 3 days it has had over 100 edits. That's hardly stable in my opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications to be done: DrKay, GoodDay, Miesianiacal, Peter Ormond, Keivan.f, Neveselbert, WP Royalty, WP Commonwealth, WP Caribbean, WP Polynesia, WP Australia, WP Canada, WP UK, WP New Zealand, WP Politics, WP Politics of UK, WP Women's History, WP Women.

John I've put above a list of notifications needed; are you working on those or do you need help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. John (talk) 15:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John you may have missed the list of editors I added to the front of the list above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did. Done now. John (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this FAR archived? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: - are you referring to the /archive1 in the title? If so, that's part of the standard FAR naming format. Hog Farm Talk 23:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see :) GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:John has kindly listed some 'sample' issues. Are we going to get a comprehensive list of all issues, or do we have to figure them out as we go along with the review? Because when featured article candidates are nominated, a detailed list of all issues is usually provided. I was wondering if the process is a little bit different here. Keivan.fTalk 21:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it as we go. I've given you some pointers towards my thinking, and some of these were picked up at the FAC but not actioned, so they have been there a long time. That they have been there such a long time suggests there is a community of regular editors who think the article is just fine, and who have not commented in article talk in the three weeks they have been there, presumably because they think the article is just fine as it is. If we begin by addressing some of the sample issues, that will give us an idea of how we can best progress. What do you think about the wording "Throughout her lifetime, support for the monarchy in the United Kingdom remained consistently high..."? Is the factoid about her visit to a Manchester wedding party germane on a top-level article about a major historical figure on whom many books have been written, more so than her paying Andrew's settlement? I think there are some problems of balance and bloat in this article. John (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, the bit about her personal popularity or more importantly the monarchy's popularity, is an irrelevant addition in the page. The British monarchy (AFAIK) is in no danger of being abolished, any time soon. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information about popularity has a separate encyclopedic value than possible future events (which are not Wikipedia's role to predict). US Congress is not very popular, polling at something like 20% approval—which is encyclopedic information, regardless of the likelihood of its abolition. However, I would rather see information on Elizabeth's personal popularity than the monarchy as an institution. (t · c) buidhe 17:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody votes every two or six years on who the British monarch should be, however. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with buidhe, in that I would rather see information on Elizabeth's personal popularity than the monarchy as an institution, given the context of the article, i.e. an individual's biography. Regarding GoodDay's response: The members of the US Congress are determined by voting every 2 or 6 years, but the institution is more enduring than that. (It isn't as long-lived as the British monarchy, but it has existed for over 200 years.) Its popularity at any given point in time isn't determined by one or even a dozen of its members; thus, I believe that buidhe's point is valid.--FeralOink (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing the mention of the Queen's Manchester tour and maybe Prince Andrew's lawsuit. Regarding the paragraph about Diana's death, I think we need to decide carefully about removal, as I think that was an important time in Elizabeth's public life. Векочел (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diana's death was a low point, if not the lowest point of her reign. So I would keep that part. I think the bit about Andrew needs to remain as well. There was a discussion about it and the community was in favor of keeping it. As User:John suggested, we could also mention that Elizabeth herself might have assisted her son, though we need to look more into it as details about the the provenance of the money paid by Andrew were never publicly revealed, and I think it's already mentioned in either Andrew's article or in the article on the lawsuit that the money could have come from the sale of his Swiss chalet. We need to avoid adding speculative info to a featured article, and even though the subject is dead, her relatives are alive and WP:BLP could apply in some form. Keivan.fTalk 00:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Daily Telegraph is quite a good source. I was not suggesting removing it but expanding it. It's a remarkable piece of history, and by omitting to mention it, the article is not comprehensive. John (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about the longevity of the British monarchy are valid. About a week ago, Queen Margarethe of Denmark made controversial cuts to the number of royals. This received quite a lot of press attention. There has been speculation about whether King Charles will similarly reduce the number of British royals. That is hardly the same as "abolishing" of course. Yet I believe that it warrants mention somewhere in the article. A single sentence about Elizabeth's popularity and a (well-sourced) statement about possible change/reduction in the role of the monarchy in the future perhaps?--FeralOink (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. I find the claims of lack of comprehensiveness and verifiability to be without merit. In a summary style article like this one it is necessary to restrict the article to an overview, using one or two illustrative examples. On the sample issue for comprehensiveness, Andrew's lawsuit is mentioned and the details can be found elsewhere. One editor above wants it removed, others want to expand it. Consensus is to include a brief mention. Adding further detail would unbalance the article since it would be necessary to include the wide-ranging estimates of the alleged loan given by the Queen, which vary by at least 9 million pounds, and the dispute over whether the supposed loan was for the Swiss chalet or the lawsuit. And by the way, Andrew doesn't deny meeting Giuffre; he said he didn't recall meeting her, which is hardly surprising given that she was a nobody and he was meeting thousands of people a year. On the sample issue for verifiability, that the Queen was widely popular in the UK is almost self-evident and any statement to the contrary would be pandering to a minority fringe view. On the sample issue for neutrality, the statement is neither dishonest nor bias; it is strictly accurate and factual. DrKay (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, nothing new for two months, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close w/o FARC per Sandy, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere and I'm not seeing a consensus that these are major issues. Hog Farm Talk 15:56, 9 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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC) [2].

USS Missouri (BB-63)

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

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

Comments

  • As Hogfarm noted, the article relies on DANFS too much; it's a government source, which should be used with some caution. Some use is fine depending on the context, and in the cases of very obscure ships, it's unavoidable, but Missouri is among the most famous, well-documented ships so finding alternatives is not a problem.
  • There are a number of sources that could be consulted to address the DANFS issue, in addition to Stillwell. Garzke & Dulin would be a good first choice to supplement Stillwell. I'm not familiar with Reilly's book, but it should also be useful; Caresse's The Battleships of the Iowa Class: A Design and Operational History might also help (though I'm given to understand that it's pretty photo heavy).
  • There is a fair bit of extraneous info that could be culled. For example, in the Korea section the two paragraphs that begin and end at "MacArthur's amphibious landings at Incheon...were evacuated by way of the sea on 24 December 1950." are almost completely off-topic that could be summarized in a sentence or two to provide the context needed.
  • There are plenty of prose issues that need to be ironed out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The box is very long, and I don't think it does its purpose of summarizing the article well; it more or less fills the same purpose as the lead section (with the exception of technical information that is better suited to tabular display), and I think the article's authors have lost sight of that. It's filled with extraneous info that add little for the reader's understanding of the topic. I could happily see the badge, motto, and nickname fields go; the locator map for Pearl Harbor probably isn't of much use; I'm 50/50 on whether Margaret Truman should be listed in the sponsor field (in that yes, she's notable, but is she all that significant in the narrative of this ship that she should be mentioned in the box? The ordered field could probably go as well, in the interest of trimming things down. And the architect field in the NHRP section is redundant.
  • Conversely, the lead is far too short and doesn't do a good job of summarizing the article. Why do we care that this ship was the third vessel named after the state? And why is that included when ship's WWII and Korea activities are described in a single sentence? No mention of goodwill cruises in the 1940s, or the grounding in 1950, or any of the ship's activities in the 80s and 90s apart from Desert Storm (which is also pretty minimal). For an article that is 75kb long, I'd expect more than 7(!) sentences in the lead.
  • I'd wonder whether anything of note has happened since 2010, the latest info we have on the ship here. I know visitation was shut down in 2020, returned to limited operation late in the year, and then returned to full operation in mid-2021 - presumably that should be included. Apparently various educational activities and such are held aboard the ship - presumably that should be mentioned too. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond what Hog Farm and Parsecboy have already mentioned, the images seem a little repetitive. There are two photographs of the exact same perspective from different decades. That would be great in a coffee table book, but I'm not sure how that is encyclopedic as there is no mention of how the second one differs from the first one other than time and painted numbers. The pop culture section should discuss the vessel's use in film (why is it chosen over other American museum battleships) and not just have a listing of what movies the vessel appeared in. Was there any fallout from the Cher music video beyond the navy not being happy? Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m late to this party, sorry, I’m just off work and after 8 long nights I am wiped out, but I note that I stand by what I stated earlier: the article itself is still sound. The external links are good and the sourcing is adequate, although the reliance on danfs and prose puffery have chewed into the articles quality. Still, though, this is a good 80% or so still featured article, so migrating sources and trimming prose shouldn’t be too hard here.
  • As noted at the the article talk page, I'm not interested in becoming an advocate for FA status, but am interested in helping to improve the article, including working in some areas noted here. I did order the Stilwell and Butler books. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I received the Stilwell book and started reading it. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "USS Missouri Memorial Association Inc" requires its own subsection, and listing the salary ranges of its chief executives puts the article off focus (we don't put captain's pay grades in ship articles, you know). -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the FA regulars. I bought and am reading the Stilwell and Butler books. Stilwell is a very thorough and extensive book on the Missouri, and Butler is on the grounding. Some of the comments above were basically that heavy use of or reliance on DANFS is a minus with respect to the "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" FA criteria. I'd be happy to add cites to some pages in those books to some items that are cited only to DANFS. My question is: with respect to that FA criteria and it's application here, would it be better to remove the DANFS cites on those or just leave them double cited? North8000 (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @North8000: Sorry for the slow reply and the logged out reply, I’m pulling a double shift tonight and I don’t log in on the iPad, however the answer is that you should double cite. This establishes two separate citations for the information, so if we lose one we can use the other in cases like that to confirm the info. I believe that I had seen Stillwell’s book on Missouri before, it should be several hundred pages of detailed information if I recall correctly…only now that I’m not a student I can’t get back to the library on campus to use the book because the COVID pandemic has it limited to students and staff only at the moment. 2600:1011:B11E:5520:CD89:8DDE:70F1:59CE (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an immense and thorough book. And it lists about 300 sources that it drew from (including interviews etc.) The only limitation is that it ends approx 1995. At that point the ship was de-comissioned, in Brementon, somewhat open to visitors. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm out of town for work right now but will try to give this a read through when I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back, will begin a readthrough with any comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I just fixed the last item on your list on the talk page.North8000 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already committed to re-reviewing H.D. and Darjeeling for FARs, but will get back to this one once I get a chance. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: No hurry, I was just noting that that particular list was done. The lead still needs a lot of work, which I plan on doing over the next few days.North8000 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finished with my planned work.North8000 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to go give it another read-through this week then. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the infobox, which did shorten it by a few lines I think, but I'm not comfortable with removing the entries for motto, badge, etc., without some discussion at WT:Ships. I could be talked into removing the sponsor field, though, as there's been some discussion about that already. Also cleaned up the captions, which including removing alt text which was entirely redundant to the caption, which will be read by screen readers. I suck at alt text, but I invite any and everyone to describe the pictures, preferably in eight words or less (I think that was the old standard).

The bibliography is out of alphabetical order(!) and the cite style is a mess as there's no rhyme or reason for some books to be included in the bibliography while others are full title in the cites. While I'm not all that fond of Garzke & Dulin, I'll probably rewrite the description section using them and Sumrall to replace Conways. I've ordered a copy of Stillwell, and his book on the New Jersey as well, which is probably in just as bad shape as this one, as I think that there's a bit too much DANFS remaining, despite North8000's much-appreciated efforts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of cites which doubled up on the DANFS cites. Per advice received above I did not remove any of the DANFS cites on those. So many of the DANFS cites are "redundant"/ no longer needed and could easily be removed. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~The bibliography is alphabetized (someone else fixed it). I've received no contrary advice on leaving in the now-double-cited DANFS-cited items, but removing those would reduce the appearance of amount of dependency on DANFS. From looking at it, the rationale for where the reference info is that when the reference is used only once, the full info is in the first section and when the reference is used multiple times then the individaul cites are in the first section and the full reference info is in the second section. IMO this looks like a good rationale. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the question of Margaret Truman in the info box, regarding info boxes, I'm sort of a "when in doubt, leave it out" guy. But that aside, she had a long history with / interactions with the ship that spanned many decades, and her dad was a strong and powerful (including as president) supporter of the ship, also with many interactions with the ship. So "sponsor" means much more than the usual. Which makes me overall neutral on inclusion in the info box. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished with the description section and have removed the duplicate links. Can I get somebody to read over what I've done and see that it reads reasonably well? And remove the under construction lable if satisfied? I've received Stillwell and will start working over the WW2 section next. One thing that I've seen is that the text uses the ship's name far too often. We need to mix it up more with "she", "the ship", "the battleship", etc., to breakup the monotony.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On images Let's start with two big things:

  • I can't find the lead image on history.navy.mil after searching all 64 pages of results for "USS Missouri" which is concerning, given the copyright status is based on it being a US Navy image. There certainly are plenty of other images of Missouri on there, though.
  • There are photos of the Missouri in the Korean War conflict, e.g. [3], so it seems odd not to include them.

There's some nice images for various periods, e.g. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 18:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam, I didn't even think to check sourcing on the images when I was cleaning up the captions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of article is usually fine with images, but a little care never hurts. I'll go through all of them given time, but, well, tail end of COVID. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8% of all FPs 18:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66, Parsecboy, and North8000: no significant amount of editing since August 7; how is this looking? Should we move to FARC just to keep this on track, or is a save in the works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My own work regarding FAR is basically limited to work on improving the article in specifically noted problem areas. I saw that as being completed. Of course, I could be wrong on that. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the reminder, Sandy. I've gotten about halfway through the Korean War section, but things are slowed by having to rewrite the direct quotations(!) from DANFS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Per my August 26th post a few lines up, I think that all of the the specifically noted problems have been fixed. And on these I limit myself to fixing specifically noted problems which I realize might not be the whole picture. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've finished reworking the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Llammakey, Sturmvogel 66, and North8000: - I've got a couple of comments, but I think this is really close
    • Complement as of 1986 recommissioning doesn't seem to be cited anywhere
    • Infobox includes more detail about the 1986 fire-control radar than the body does; any chance a slight bit of detail could be added to the body?

I think we're probably good to close without FARC here, though. The primary issues have been well-addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten to cover the evolution of the ship's radar suite aside from the reactivation, so I'm glad that you noticed the skimpiness of the coverage there. I'll handle these remaining issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done, see how my changes read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - Based on this change, is there any chance of getting a source for the 1986 complement given the number had to be changed? Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, it's in there but I missed it. Apologies for the excess ping. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any problem with me going ahead and making the cites uniform? The Polmar cite is different than the others. Also, is there any intent to incorporate Marks, Craig; Tannenbaum, Rob (2011). I Want My MTV: The Uncensored Story of the Music Video Revolution. New York: Dutton. ISBN 978-1-101-52641-5. into the article, otherwise it should go into the further reading section. Llammakey (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV source can probably go, we seem to have that material pretty well covered without it. Sturm is responsible for most of the referencing, so they'd need to weigh in on the citation style. Hog Farm Talk 14:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the Polmar cite. Feel free to add the video book to the further references section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the MTV book is useful, maybe not even in the "further references" section. The reference is just to the book in general, there are no page numbers given and as is implicit in your note, the reference is not used/cited in the article. I view the main reason for inclusion of the video to be because it is a part of the history of the ship (which Stillwell thoroughly covered), rather than as an appearance in popular culture. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've made one further tweak on the Polmar cite to get the harv ref linking working. I went ahead and removed the MTV book entirely; that incident is a very minor part of the ship's history and IMO the book is too tangential for further reading inclusion. Hog Farm Talk 16:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the article to try to get this FAR moving. I made some minor grammar changes and added alt text per MOS:ALT. I have some questions/comments below:
  • The Korean War section has many paragraphs that talk about the logistics of the war but not necessarily about the ship. While I understand that the reader needs to understand some context about the war, I think there is too much information here that is off topic and perhaps can be summarised, removed, or put in better context regarding Missouri's role in these events. In particular, the paragraph starting with "MacArthur's amphibious landings" does not mention Missouri, and the first half of the subsequent paragraph is very detailed.
  • Can any of the sources in the "Further reading" section be used an inline citations in the article? My thoughts are that "comprehensive" FAs have minimal further reading sections as that information should be in the article if it has information to add.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 and North8000: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are just my personal opinions. IMO the Korean war material is pretty heavily about the Mo but there about 4-6 sentences too much about the war in general to be needed to provide context for the Missouri material. They kind of glaringly stand out as such. I don't want to be hasty but would be happy to pare those down or take them out. I'm not sure what to say about the further reading section. It consists of 6 books. One is about the Mo specifically the other 5 are on broader topics. I'd be happy to buy and read the book on the Mo and incorporate it in references because a book specifically about the MO is likely to improve the article, but that would probably take me 1-2 months. I'm sure there would be a way for someone who has those other 5 books to incorporate them as references but those books are inherently going to be mostly about things other than the MO and have less depth of coverage of the MO than the main references which are focused on the Mo. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and North8000: - I think the most essential works are currently cited. As of Newell, the only subject-centric source not cited, I found on online retail page saying it has about 190 pages and yet 200 images, so I don't know that it'll have too much actual text on the subject. I'm not as familiar with battleship sourcing as Sturm is, but I don't see any issues with what is cited and what isn't. Hog Farm Talk 16:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: I'd support you doing a reduction in words, and if someone thinks something is removed that shouldn't be, we can discuss it here or on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I trimmed the background information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My concerns have been resolve or addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:50, 2 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) 5:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [10].

Eli Lilly

edit
Charles Edward, Indyguy, WP Bio, WP Milhist, WP Business, WP Pharmacology, WP Indiana Historical Society, WP Maryland, WP Indiana, talk page notice 2022-10-10

Review section

edit

This 2009 promotion is not at FA standards, and considerable source-to-text integrity issues identified in October 2022 have not been tackled. Considering the extent of the source-to-text issues, a thorough source check should be done if a save is undertaken here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include verifiability/sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 14 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) 5:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [11].

Madman Muntz

edit
Notified: Nobody of Consequence (blocked), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject California, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, 2021-10-09 2022-09-04

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I found several sources in WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar earlier this year that could be added to the article, which makes me believe that this article is no longer comprehensive. (I can post a list of the sources below if anyone is interested in fixing up the article). Bumbubookworm also noted concerns with page numbers in 2021, and there are some places in the article that need citations, as indicated with cn tags. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
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) 5:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [12].

Nafanan language

edit
Notified: M. Dingemanse, A455bcd9, Eievie, Peter Isotalo, WP Africa, WP Languages noticed in June

Review section

edit

As noted on the article's talk page, this older FA promotion isn't at the modern FA sourcing standards, with uncited text and possible original research. Hog Farm Talk 17:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed some issues. The most recent sources used are from 2005. We should look at more recent sources, such as:
  • Atintono, Samuel Awinkene (2007). "The adjective class in Nafaanra". Proceedings of the Annual Colloquium of the Legon-Trondheim Linguistics Project, 9-13 January 2007. Linguistics Department, University of Ghana. pp. 9–13.
  • Zaslavsky, Noga; Garvin, Karee; Kemp, Charles; Tishby, Naftali; Regier, Terry (2022). "The evolution of color naming reflects pressure for efficiency: Evidence from the recent past". Journal of Language Evolution. 7 (2): 184–199. doi:10.1093/jole/lzac001. ISSN 2058-4571.
  • Su, Shenghan; Gu, Lin; Cui, Ziteng; Yang, Yue; Shen, Jingjing; Yamane, Hiroaki; Zhang, Zenghui; Harada, Tatsuya (2022). "Name Your Colour For the Task: Artificially Discover Colour Naming via Colour Quantisation Transformer". arXiv:2212.03434 [cs.CV].
    • Not (yet?) peer-reviewed
  • Yéo, Kanabein Oumar (2013). "Le système des genres nafanan, un cas de changement linguistique". Cahiers Ivoiriens de Recherche Linguistique (in French). 33–34. Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny: 77–94.
  • Yéo, Kanabein Oumar (2017). "Contribution au débat sur la longueur vocalique dans les langues sénoufo". In Ahoua, Firmin; Ohiọmamhẹ Elugbe, Ben (eds.). Language typology and language documentation in West Africa: Proceedings of the 27th West African Linguistics Congress (WALS). Paris: L'Harmattan. p. 309. ISBN 978-2-343-08595-1. OCLC 989099481.
  • Yéo, Kanabein Oumar (2020). "L'adjectif qualificatif et son accord dans les langues senoufo" (PDF). Akofena (in French). 1. Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny: 15–30. ISSN 2708-0633.
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 14 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) 5:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [13].

Norman Birkett, 1st Baron Birkett

edit
Notified: [14], Nov 2022

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per my talk page comment last month, "The article depends largely on a single source from the 1960s. Other sources need to be cited for balance and comprehensiveness." Examples are listed there. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to understand the featured article standard but I agree that most of these citations are to the same book. Even most good articles would have a range of sources. Jorahm (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 14 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) 5:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [15].

Iridium

edit
Notified: FAC nominator indeffed years ago and not notified, Itub, Stone, Cryptic C62, Materialscientist, Wbuchma, Mav, WP Elements, WP Geology, WP Rocks and minerals, noticed August 5

Review section

edit

Back on August 5, I noted issues on talk with datedness, lead issues, failed verification, and poor sourcing. While this resulted in the article being pulled from the TFA schedule, the issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Graeme Bartlett: Some things are missing
  • We need an update as to prices and production or use figures to the present date. updated table still missing.--Stone (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also has there been any new isotopes discovered in the last 20 years?
The doi:10.1088/1674-1137 does not seem to work. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The metal working section just seems historical. How do people work it nowadays? What do jewelers do? How are crucibles made?
  • Has iridium been detected in any stars? How is it made? (is it binary neutron star mergers?)
  • much of the property information in the infobox is unreferenced. Or even if it is by clicking through, is hard to locate references.
  • A photo of an iridium compound would be good.
  • In the text it mentions "volatile new oxide" but it appears that this is the osmium oxide. So might be best to explain that.
  • Occurrence in the crust graph does not match text. It looks as if iridium is the rarest, not the same as tellurium. (though graph is by number of atoms).
  • This is because of the mentioned atoms versus weight issue.
  • Density - there is a claim around that iridium density is higher than osmium under pressure. Probably this should be mentioned.
  • "Densities of Osmium and Iridium". Technology.matthey.com. is incompletely referenced - appears to be a journal article - easy to fix. changed to journal reference --Stone (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kittel, C. (2004). Introduction to Solid State Physics (7th ed.). Wiley-India. ISBN 978-81-265-1045-0. needs a page number rather than a whole book
  • Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocks: An A–Z Guide to the Elements (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960563-7. also has an old edition listed. But this new edition has no page numbers
  • Chemistry : foundations and applications -- link appears to go to a page that does not support the fact. Perhaps it is vol1 instead of vol2.
  • Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E.; Wiberg, N. (2001). Inorganic Chemistry (1st ed.). Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-352651-9. OCLC 47901436. → missing page number
  • Relación histórica del viage a la América Meridional → volume 1 does not appear to have 606 pages (only 404). Copies are online so it would be good to link to a page image for this ref. http://alfama.sim.ucm.es/dioscorides/consulta_libro.asp?ref=b19196386&idioma=0
  • A system of chemistry of inorganic bodies page 693 does not mention "ptene" - perhaps page is wrong. Or perhaps volume is wrong, the link is for volume 2 but reference does not state the volume. https://archive.org/details/asystemchemistr07thomgoog/page/692/mode/2up Yes this mentioned in the first volume, changed the link and added volume = 1 .--Stone (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discovery of the elements by Mary Elvira Weeks 1968 → archive.org has taken this down
  • Trigg, G. L. (1995). Landmark Experiments in Twentieth Century Physics. → this is on Google books preview, and the chapter is "Recoilless Emission and Absorption of Radiation" [19]
  • "Cuproiridsite" reference has a PDF date 17 October 2005. And author=Mineral Data Publishing
  • Vitaly A. Stepanov; Valentina E. Kungurova; Vitaly I. Gvozdev (2010). "IRARSITE DISCOVERY IN COPPER-NICKEL ORES OF SHANUCH DEPOSIT (KAMCHATKA)" should probably be in title case. changed from LOUD to normal title --Stone (talk)
  • Iridium and Osmium as Tracers of Extraterrestrial Matter in Marine Sediments might need to make this clearer that its in a book edited by Peucker-Ehrenbrink, B., Schmitz, B. published by Springer
  • Platinum-Group Metals. U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries now redirects to "Platinum-Group Metals Statistics and Information" at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/platinum-group-metals-statistics-and-information by Ruth F. Schulte new link --Stone (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Singerling, Sheryl A.; Schulte, Ruth F. (August 2021). "Platinum-Group Metals". 2018 Minerals Yearbook (PDF). USGS. p. 57.11. link is now dead. (All access to this object has been disabled)--Stone (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jollie, D. (2008). "Platinum 2008" (PDF). Platinum. Johnson Matthey. ISSN 0268-7305. Retrieved 2008-10-13. → the link appears to be for something different. corrected and added doi issue volume and correct link --Stone (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emsley, J. (2005-01-18). "Iridium" (PDF). Visual Elements Periodic Table. Royal Society of Chemistry → now redirects to a periodic table, so perhaps something else needs to be referenced like https://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/77/iridium changed to the hunt reference which says the same like the website.--Stone (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link for Handley, J. R. (1986). "Increasing Applications for Iridium" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review. 30 (1): 12–13. → no longer works--Stone (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stallforth, H.; Revell, P. A. (2000). Euromat 99. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 978-3-527-30124-9. → link does not work for Google books, and there is no page number for referencing spark plug use.
  • US 3293031A, Cresswell, Peter & Rhys, David, published 20/12/1966 should make this clear it's a patent.
  • Darling, A. S. (1960). "Iridium Platinum Alloys" (PDF). Platinum Metals Review. 4 (l): 18–26 → link does not work, but bibcode is OK. Should add doi 10.1038/186211a0 → it appears this is really published in Nature. Nature volume 186, page 211 (1960) The Nature is only a review of the published article--Stone (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penzes, W. B. (2001). "Time Line for the Definition of the Meter". National Institute for Standards and Technology → link is dead--Stone (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluidigm Cell-ID™ Intercalator-Ir". → should have a bit more reference info - it is a company page about product.
  • Mottishaw, J. (1999). "Notes from the Nib Works—Where's the Iridium?". The PENnant. XIII (2). → link goes to a blog index page, but the story is not there, so need to locate a better link changed link to the real blog--Stone (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Paris Exhibition". The Chemical News and Journal of Physical Science. XV: 182. → should be able to have a link, perhaps: https://archive.org/details/chemicalnewsand08croogoog/page/n195/mode/2up

Why not use https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=File:The_chemical_news._Volume_15,_January_-_June_1867._(IA_s713id13683370).pdf&page=188 ? --Stone (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not many options of photos for this element's compounds. If a user could upload a new photo, that would be great, but in the meantime I chose File:Sodium hexachloroiridate(III) hydrate.jpg with alt text Inorganic pale brown powder and a crossref to a foreign-language article on the compound shown. Other options were File:Ir2Cl2(cod)2.jpg, File:Vaska's-complex-sample.jpg, and two blurry crystal samples of lithium iridate. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stone's last edit on Wikipedia was Nov. 14, and Smokefoot made some large edits last week. Is this article ready for more reviews, or are more edits needed? Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reaffirming my delist from October. There are incomplete citations, an image layout mess, and update needs throughout. As but one sample, this text cited to a 1999 source: "The tip material in modern fountain pens is still conventionally called "iridium", although there is seldom any iridium in it; other metals such as ruthenium, osmium, and tungsten have taken its place.[97]". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to delist - has been stalled out for some time, and there's still material that needs checked for updates/newer sources, such as "At least 32 metastable isomers have been characterized," to a source from 2003; copyedit/prose work needs such as "Iridium in its complexes is always low-spin)." [unclear if the closing parenthesis is on purpose or an accident]; and citation problems such as citing an entire book. This still needs work, which hasn't been happening at an appreciable rate since early December. Hog Farm Talk 21:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

update section

  • Concentration in igneous rocks, including the enriched and in the mantle.?
  • Improve infobox references.
  • In the text it mentions "volatile new oxide" but it appears that this is the osmium oxide. So might be best to explain that.
  • Kittel, C. (2004). needs a page number rather than a whole book
  • Emsley, John (2011). Nature's Building Blocksalso has an old edition listed. But this new edition has no page numbers
  • Chemistry : foundations and applications -- link appears to go to a page that does not support the fact. Perhaps it is vol1 instead of vol2.
  • Holleman, A. F.; Wiberg, E.; Wiberg, N. (2001). Inorganic Chemistry missing page number
  • Relación histórica del viage a la América Meridional → volume 1 does not appear to have 606 pages (only 404). Copies are online so it would be good to link to a page image for this ref. http://alfama.sim.ucm.es/dioscorides/consulta_libro.asp?ref=b19196386&idioma=0
  • Trigg, G. L. (1995). Landmark Experiments in Twentieth Century Physics. → this is on Google books preview, and the chapter is "Recoilless Emission and Absorption of Radiation" [20]
  • "Cuproiridsite" reference has a PDF date 17 October 2005. And author=Mineral Data Publishing
  • Direct link to page for " The Playbook of Metals" → https://archive.org/details/playbookmetalsi00peppgoog/page/454/mode/2up
  • ALT text checking: mostly good except for File:Gama Supreme Flat Top ebonite eyedropper fountain pen 3.JPG and File:Elemental abundances.svg have nothing.
  • post-2016 consumption figures
  • Reference for "The only reported injuries related to iridium concern accidental exposure to radiation from 192 Ir"
  • radioisotope iridium-192 is one of the two most important sources for radiation.

-Stone (talk) 14 November 2022

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) 5:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC) [21].

Hilary Putnam

edit
Notified: User talk:Lacatosias, User talk:BardRapt, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Cognitive science, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, WikiProject University of California Dec 2021, talk page notice 28 June 2022

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because concerns were raised over 6months ago and are still unadressed. Z1720 left an extensive list on the talk page, including issues with uncited text, lack of hqrs, and lack of specificity in some areas (t · c) buidhe 02:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter is working at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation style wandered all over the place, including a mix of template and various different manual choices. I've slowly been trying to standardize them. XOR'easter (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think the citation style is uniform now. Some entries probably have DOI's and/or JSTOR identifiers that still need to be looked up and added, but at least now that can be done by plugging into a template. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think I've done the most tedious part of the maintenance. Of the issues raised on the talk page, the citation style is now consistent, encyclopedia.com has been replaced, and ownership of the blog has been confirmed. I disagree with the idea that the article should be organized wholly chronologically, as that would weave in and out of different philosophical subjects. Having a chronological part and a conceptual/thematic part makes more sense to me. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable so far to get a copy of the L. P. Hickey book that is cited several times. I doubt that anything cited to it is wrong, or at least grossly wrong, since those statements match what is said in other sources (e.g., the NYT obituary) when they do overlap. XOR'easter (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are not big source-to-text integrity concerns here; it's not an article that has been hit by everyone with a keyboard, and there's no reason to believe the FA version had sourcing issues. (It was a miserable FAC, but not for sourcing reasons.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be on the safe side, I supplemented that reference with the obituary in the Guardian.
The article had nothing about Putnam's work in the philosophy of quantum physics, which would be enough to disqualify it from being FA on comprehensiveness grounds. I added a brief section on the topic. It is difficult to say more on it, since the subject matter is doubly esoteric (physics and philosophy), and Putnam was rather infamous for never taking the same viewpoint twice. XOR'easter (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another list of his doctoral students somewhere, besides this? XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if it's "Wikipedia's best work" or not, but I think it's in better shape than it was, with the problems that had been identified either fixed or only debatably problematic. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks XOR ! Buidhe can you wrangle in other reviewers to look at this? The original FAC gives me such bad memories that the idea of combing through this article gives me hives. I'd rather not be the one to have to comb through it in gory detail; happy to peek in after others have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I finally looked at that, and ... yikes. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided that I have no idea how to cover Putnam's doctoral students (a topic raised on the Talk page). There is no definitive list that I can find, and thus no good starting point for writing a summary. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps we can agree to not add them at all, unless an individual student is so prominent, and mentioned by enough secondary sources, that it would be WP:UNDUE not to mention that individual. This issue is an artifact of infoboxes we don't need. Because someone stuck a stupid parameter in an infobox template, we're left with information that does nothing to increase our understanding of the subject; we aren't obliged to use an infobox, or that parameter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe we're at a month, and this is your nom. Are you able to revisit, and wrangle in others who might opine? Guidance or declarations or feedback are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like XOR'easter has improved the article alot. I'm not immediately seeing anything that would lead me to oppose it. However, I know next to nothing about the subject matter and have limited time to learn it. (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 are you able to add anything here relative to your original list on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Since I made that list several months ago, I decided to review this article. Here are some thoughts below:
  • The lede is quite long. While the article can justify 3-4 paragraphs per MOS:LEDELENGTH, the current lede is really pushing those boundaries. Any ideas on what can potentially be removed or rephrased?
  • "a publication of the American Communist Party, from 1936 to 1946 (when he became disillusioned with communism)." I'm assuming that the parenthesis is about his father's disillusionment with communism although I was unclear when I first read it. If his father's communist disillusionment is not relevant to Putnam's life, then I think the parenthesis can be removed.
  • I added a citation needed tag at the end of a paragraph and some quotes.
  • In "Metaphilosophy and ontology" why are "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" bolded?
  • I think "Metaphilosophy and ontology" can be organised more effectively into fewer paragraphs.
  • "Criticism" sections have fallen out of use on Wikipedia due to POV concerns. Perhaps this section can be reworked into an analysis section of his theories?
  • Why is "Sardonic comment" a high quality source?
  • Ref 1, "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy" and ref 38, ""Hilary Putnam Wins the Rescher Prize for 2015!". need an access dates.
Unfortunately, the information about his theories is too technical for my understanding, so it's hard for me to evaluate that. However, I think the above gives some additional things that can be improved. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "internal realism" and "pragmatic realism" are bolded because internal realism and pragmatic realism redirect to that section (MOS:BOLDREDIRECT). Sardonic comment is Hilary Putnam's blog, I haven't looked at what it's being used to cite though so I'm not sure if it's being used appropriately or not. I've fixed some of the smaller things listed above but the main ones still need working on. Alduin2000 (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes, sardoniccomment is his blog, and I added proof of that some months back (to one of the citations if I recall correctly) .. it is being used appropriately (last I checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've redistributed the wealth of the "Criticism" section to the other sections, and I moved some of the details from the lede to the main text. XOR'easter (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried a major reorganization of "Metaphilosophy and ontology", but I did join some short paragraphs. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about sourcing on talk from Alduin2000. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC to keep the process on track. FARC does not preclude further work and that the article's star still might be saved.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've started trying to fix some of the sourcing issues I raised by adding additional secondary sources. I noticed that there is some repetition on the various realisms Putnam subscribed to throughout his life (e.g. direct realism, internal realism etc.), especially between the Epistemology, Metaphilosophy and ontology, and Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein sections. I've been trying to figure out how to merge all of this together in a way that makes sense, and what section would be best to merge it all to. Does anyone else have any ideas about this? Alduin2000 (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had a good idea here. Perhaps the material in "Neopragmatism and Wittgenstein" can be redistributed to other sections. XOR'easter (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, style and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2022 (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) 5:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC) [22].

William Harper (Rhodesian politician)

edit
Notified: Indy beetle, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rhodesia, talk page notice 16 June 2020

Review section

edit

This is one of the oldest listings at WP:FARGIVEN, noted since 16 June 2020 for sourcing and comprehensiveness issues. It's main and only significant contributor is vanished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle I just graduated from college and thus my excellent library, JSTOR, etc. access has been lost, but I'll see what I can offer. @Nick-D:, you might be able to help some here. The main problem I see at the outset is the reliance on J R T Wood's work, which is published by Trafford Publishing, a self-publishing service. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 8 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) 5:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC) [23].

Internationalist (album)

edit
Notified: WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Australia

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because having previously tagged it as needing to be updated last year, I feel that its sources do not live up to current FA standards. Much of its contributors have not edited the article since 2008. 웃OO 00:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right away I'm seeing a lot of really bad stuff that would call for a speedy delist.
  1. The two maintenance tags alone should be a quick fail.
  2. "Personnel" is unsourced and overlinked (only uncommon instruments need linkage)
  3. Many of the sources (3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, etc.) are incomplete, lacking page numbers or author info. What exactly is "Media Search"?
  4. "Australian Artist Albums Chart" peaks are unsourced
  5. Bonus disc track list should be sourced
  6. "Reception" is really choppy with a lot of one sentence paragraphs
  7. "Background" is only three sentences long; could this be expanded?

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through this:

  • Issue #1: the tags have been removed, and it was never really explained what needed updated here
  • Issue #2: Should be easily resolvable if anyone has the liner notes from a CD copy or something
  • Issues #3, #4, and #5 are problematic
  • Issue #6: I'm only seeing one one-sentence paragraph
  • Issue #7: If there's not much to say about the songwriting, this could probably be merged into the recording material

So I don't think the issues are quite as severe as have been portrayed, but work does need done here. The FAC nominator hasn't edited regularly since 2009, and given that nobody's showed up here to work on it, plus the fact that the last 50 edits go back to 2016, it looks like the work isn't going to occur, so delist I guess. Hog Farm Talk 16:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is not far from fulfilling the FAC criteria, but currently it needs work and no one is willing to step up to fix it, so delist for now and hopefully someone will make improvements and renominate at FAC later. Z1720 (talk) 19:32, 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.
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) 5:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC) [24].

Benjamin Franklin Tilley

edit
Notified: Jrp, Dilidor, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP USA, WP Polynesia, noticed on September 30

Review section

edit

Extraordinary Writ noted failed verification issues on talk, as well as two instances of modern scholarly source that the article doesn't use, instead relying on period newspaper items. The sourcing issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2022 (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/January_2023&oldid=1136009676"