Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2024

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept

edit

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) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [1].

Decipherment of rongorongo

edit
Notified: Kwamikagami, WikiProject Writing systems, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Polynesia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile, talk page notice 2022-11-19, Sourcing list 2023-09-03

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the large unsourced sections. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kwamikagami - any thoughts here? Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already put in a *lot* of time into that article, and am now working on other things. Many of the sources were in the collection of Jacques Guy, so I no longer have access to them, as he's moved on as well. I monitor the article to prevent it from getting corrupted by crackpots (though they aren't so bad any more, apart from one insisting we give equal time to the idea that people write upside-down in the southern hemisphere -- at least no-one's pushing the latest 'decipherment', which was revealed by telepathic rabbits), but I'm not willing to take this kind of time away from my other responsibilities. — kwami (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2024 (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) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [2].

Richard Hakluyt

edit
Notified: Jacklee, Kognos, Deb, WP Biography, WP England, WP Geography, WP London, WP University of Oxford, WP Virginia, noticed 2023-07-28

Review section

edit

As I noted on the article's talk page, the sources used in this article give me concerns about WP:FACR #1c and #1b. The article is sourced primary to a couple of web sources, several very old works from the 1800s, and some tertiary sources over 100 years old. A few snippets of the article are even direct word-for-word from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. This is problematic from a featured article criteria perspective, due to the existence of the Mancall 2007 work listed in the further reading - a modern biography of Hakluyt published by Yale. As noted in my comments on the article's talk page, there is also very extensive discussion of Hakluyt in academic journals over the last few decades, although those of course will not be as comprehensive as the entire Mancall biography. I don't see how this article can meet 1b and 1c of the FA criteria using only the sources currently used. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 23 December 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) 6:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC) [3].

Reactive attachment disorder

edit
Notified: list, Nov 2023

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because per the talk page comment by SandyGeorgia, "This article is badly outdated, has uncited text, and has too many long quotes." It has a cleanup banner at the top of the article, meaning it is unsuitable to be kept unless that issue can be resolved. There doesn't seem to be an ongoing improvement effort. (t · c) buidhe 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: The article is very out of date and the notes and references at the bottom are also categorized oddly. The notes section is where the actual references are and the references section is just a list of general references without inline citations. Overall I think the article needs to be fixed up more before it could be classified as a featured article. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I didn't notice! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FAR, no edits/engagement (t · c) buidhe 08:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, major updating needed. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no one has addressed the September "Update needed" tag. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:38, 23 December 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [4].

Monte Ne

edit
Notified: Littleboybrew, The stuart WP Arkansas, WP NRHP, WP Ghost towns, first noticed 2023-02-11

Review section

edit

This older featured article contains significant uncited text and some of the sources, while probably not wrong, aren't likely to be considered good for the FA level, such as the Skipper book. Littleboybrew has expressed concerns that chunks of the article were too closely taken from the Lord book. While Littleboybrew recently substantially rewrote parts of the article, the outstanding issues and residual concerns are severe enough to warrant review of featured article status. Hog Farm Talk 04:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 30 December 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [5].

Harold Innis

edit
Notified: Bwark, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, Wikiproject Canada, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Linguistics, 2023-08-14

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I found many additional sources that were not used in this article, which I posted on the article's talk page, and uncited passages (including the whole "Cod fishery" section). Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • So the article is using numerous BOOKS like biographies as sources, and you're saying that it's not FA material because it doesn't use the random journal articles that you've pasted on the talk page. In the humanities, journal articles tend to be speculative and theoretical, advancing particularly detailed or arcane theses that have little use to article writing here. This is a difficulty with almost all humanities topics on this project. No good humanities biography FA should rely on journal articles basically *at all*, IMO. The criticism that it fails to use random journal articles is weak. The way that FAR is used continues as it has for a decade to boggle me completely, and many others who gave up on the FA stuff long ago. (uninvolved in this article; no pings pls.) Outriggr (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a closer look at the sources used, and I am concerned about the number of times that Innis is used as a primary source, and if the article might have original research. For example, the following is only cited to one of Innis's work: "He saw the Soviet Union as a stabilizing counterbalance to the American emphasis on commercialism, the individual and constant change...." If this is important enough to mention in the article, I would expect a high-quality secondary source would have the same interpretation of the research and could be cited instead. This is just one example; if someone is willing to fix up the article, I am happy to provide additional examples. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Z1720's concerns are valid IMO and I don't see ongoing improvement. Additionally, the lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD and could benefit from trimming and the citation format does not appear to be consistent. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC work is not ongoing to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 30 December 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/January_2024&oldid=1195898680"