Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2024

< 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) 1:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [1].

William Wilberforce

edit
Notified: [2], May 2022

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns I raised a year ago about the sourcing and comprehensiveness, which have yet to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working. § Lingzhi (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to Buidhe's comments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Buidhe there is an over reliance on one text and this does mean that perhaps all the relevant literature has not been explored. Bayne, Belmonte, Carey, Furneux, Hennell, Pura, Reed, Rodriquez, Vaughan texts appear in the sources list but have not been cited within the article. Article does appear salvageable with some work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely revamped the referencing system. Not saying it's perfect; just saying it is now much, much, much easier to work with. Replacing all the Hague stuff becomes easier (but still not easy), forex. More later. Hoping others will pitch in too. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's my plan: First I have to finish a Talk:Logic/GA1. After that, I'm gonna turn to Wilberforce (unless someone comments on my poor, unloved FAC). For Wilberforce, I'm gonna use my sandbox extensively. Others will be free to use it too, if anyone so desires. There I'll make a bullet-point list of all the Hague 2007 cited text such as "which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11]" When I find it in a better source, I'll strike through that item in my sandbox and change the cite in article text... FAR is supposed to take 2 weeks? It is very possible I will not finish before then. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) A cold-hearted and selfish thought has occurred to me: if User:Slp1 declines to help, then I should just let it be delisted. Then I can fix everything at my leisure (it's gonna take time!) and renominate. So that's what I'll do. § Lingzhi (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Email Slp1?
This FAR was launched on 8 May; Slp1 has not posted since 7 May, so we can guess they haven't yet seen the FAR (someone might consider emailing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an email address on her user page. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Email this user" is in the standard toolbox on the left-hand side of the page at User:Slp1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, NO, it seems it's under TOOLS in the skin I use. I did CTRL-F and did not see it... because it is under TOOLS... but thank you for telling me... and now I will look under TOOLS for email address... will email her... tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warning that posting on someone's talk page already sends an email to the address on record (there is no way to disable this as far as I know). However, it's always possible that she might respond to a second email. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you have your Preferences --> Notifications set that way (I don't, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself? However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.
The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews [3][4];[5][6][7][8][9]. It has been widely cited according to google scholar [10]. Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte, Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old. The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.
There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV in the facts cited from Hague. Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.
The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":
  • [11]-Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
  • [12] Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
  • [13] The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
  • [14] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
  • [15] William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.
The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources. None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this [16] which is rather old (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control. Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest) but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.
That's all I have time for now. Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC. But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again, but would welcome other eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done. The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: Is the source RS, or not? @Slp1: You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something. It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence (talk • contribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

Slp1 is this ready for a new look yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Life is busy. Trying to finish it off soon. Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Slp1 made some edits the past few days, so work seems to be starting up again. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I am pretty much done. Sorry that it has taken so long but I have many things going on in my life at present. A quick report:
In general, it was good to go over the text. Some errors and some unnecessary digressions had been introduced, so a freshen up was needed.
After considerable searching, I did find enough reliable sources about Wilberforce's name being used by conservative Christian groups in N. America, so I added a couple of sentences to the Legacy section. [17]
My memory was failing me when I said that the capital punishment issue was missing from the article. I It was already there, but I have expanded a bit based on the Devereaux article.[18] [19]
The main remaining issue is referencing. I would like to know what the rules are about this. When the article passed FA in 2008 we used Harvard for books (to give page numbers) and citation templates for other sources [20]. I guess the rules have changed since then? Lingzi very kindly changed everything to Harvard but I find this very difficult to work with. You have to add and delete references in two places. It is a buggy. I don't think it is ideal for readers as they have to look in two places to see a reference. It also increases the maintenance issues as people tend to use citation templates when they add material which somebody who knows how Harvard works (ie not me!) then has to convert to the Harvard system. Anyway, I gather people have strong feelings about this, but for what it is worth my preference would be either to have the old mixed system or to convert to the citation templates totally. I will do it, although I will be very sorry about Lingzhi's work going to waste. However, I think it will be easier to keep up to snuff. Please advise Slp1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "rules" have not changed; an overall change to sfn was not indicated, a mixed system is still accepted, and you can change it back to what it was, as long as it is consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting to see if other had comments on this, but it seems not. Okay, I will start the process of restoring the former mixed system. I continued to be very pressed for time due to family issues, but will make a start on a draft page today or tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1, how's it going? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have pretty much done. It is here [21]. I cannot figure out how to make note b have a reference. If anybody can help that would be wonderful. I am also not sure about the names and order of the sections of references so welcome comments and suggestions about that too.. as well as about anything else of course.Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 Would it help to look at the notes at J. K. Rowling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea!! Sorry should have thought of something similar myself!! I don't have time now, but maybe later. Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have finished my labours, for now at least. It is ready for others to take a look.Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been cleaned up a ton for which I thank slp1 and other editors who helped. Reading through the changes made since the FAR nomination, it's clear that most of the sources added are improvements. However, I did notice one source—Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce—that I just can't agree is a high quality RS. The author is not a historian, rather an evangelist and theologian, and I cannot find any independent sources attesting to the accuracy of the book. (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. That source was in the article at the original FA and I agree it is not the best. It was supported in its entirety by Pollock, so was not actually needed. I have replaced it with Tomkins. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have no objection to keeping at this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a hard time seeing how

  • His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation ...

summarizes the content of this section. First, it reads as if conservatism = politically repressive legislation, which doesn't follow. Second, the section reads as if the issues were that a) he opposed unions, and b) he wasn't as active in advancing legislation on national relative to international issues, and c) he had (then) traditionally conservative religious views on women, but offsetting that we have the whole paragraph beginning with "More progressively, ... " which includes multiple issues as well as his philanthropy and seems overlooked in the lead summary. I'm concerned that the lead gives more weight to certain criticisms than to certain beliefs and achievements. Do the sources support the wording more progressively? Those words seem to indicate that those achievements were somehow at odds with his conservatism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that your assumptions hold. In this case he supported legislation that was politically and socially repressive of unions, Catholics, and people trying to organize "seditiously". The supporters of the legislation were largely British conservatives. It does not require any assumption about different varieties of conservatism over time and in different countries. That said, if you have an idea of better phrasing you could propose it here. I deleted the phrase "more progressively" as I don't think it's necessary. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there is a difference in what 'conservative/conservatism' means in different countries that is causing difficulties, but multiple reliable sources confirm that Wilberforce was (small c) conservative (in the sense that he did not believe in significant changes to society), and that as a result he often supported repressive legislation and did not support progressive reforms. A wide range sources mention this from (big C) Conservatives (William Hague) to religious historians (Andrew Walls to the more left wing American journalist/historian Adam Hochschild.
  • Hague in the bio: "Such views were pure Wilberforce: for although he spearheaded the abolitionist campaign and led so many other endeavours on the basis of justice, fairness, and concern for the poor or destitute, he was no political radical. He was utterly conservative when it came to the defence of the constitution or the existing political order, seeing revolution or anything approaching it as hostile both to religion and to wise and considered leadership" p.255; "It is largely because of Wilberforce’s attitude towards domestic discontent after the war that he has sometimes been seen as having a narrow and unbending view of British society, confirming the impression made to history by his support for the Combination Act in the 1790s that he was the enemy of many progressive political causes."p.444 "The seeming contradictions of Wilherforce’s life have always made him difficult to unravel and understand: a man of conservative disposition who devoted much of his life to one of the great progressive causes of his time";p 505 . Note in particular how the word conservative and progressive are used by a Conservative.
  • Walls 2023 "Although Wilberforce and his colleagues were vigorous campaigners on such issues, they were often conservative on domestic social issues. A Baptist like Carey might welcome the French Revolution, at least in its early stages; Wilberforce trembled at it and supported all the British goverment's repressive legislation in the wake of it. The political reflexes of Wilberforce were invariably conservative. He had no vision of a new society . He thought, indeed, that the British constitution already embodied all the excellencies….. This is no social revolutionary. He acknowledges inequality, even that inequality produces evils, but does not expect to these to change, does not seem to think of them within the sphere or public policy." p 70 pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover
  • Hochschild "Within a few years of Bennet Langton’s dinner party, West Indian planters would be burning Wilberforce in effigy; later, it was reported, runaway slaves in the Jamaican backcountry would be praying to Saint Wilberforce. It was a most unlikely fate for a gentle, impractical man who, on almost every other major issue, was profoundly conservative. He was against increasing the tiny number of Britons with the right to vote, fearful of any attempt to mobilize public opinion, and dismayed by members of the lower classes or women who questioned their assigned places in the social order.” p 124 Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Slp1: Sorry that I didn't respond before. I based my conclusion on the article history, which seemed to show a stalled nomination. Have buidhe's concerns about the overreliance on Hague been addressed? Has a search for more sources been conducted? Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I said above that I don't object to keeping at this point. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all the issues were responded to/addressed, as Buidhe says. It is pretty demoralizing that people vote to delist without actually reading even the discussion. It seems that this part of Wikipedia is under-resourced, as reviewers are needed who take the time to review the article and the discussion and either come up with additional issues or vote to keep. --Slp1 (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response everyone: it has been hard to find time to sit down and do a review. Here are some comments:

  • For the images, I added alt text and changed px to upright.
  • I wish the lede mentioned something about his legacy after he died.
  • I started reading through the article. I've done some copyedits, but also removed information that concerned the abolitionist movement, but did not directly relate to Wilberforce's biography. I suggest that this information be moved to other articles so that this biography can remain focused on Wilberforce. Feel free to revert if anyone thinks the information should be in the article, but please note below why you think this is important information for this specific article.

I am pausing at "Early parliamentary action" because I have to go, but I will try to continue at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finished reviewing the article. I think it's in good shape now, though I did remove a lot of information that I thought was off-topic for this article and not necessary to understand Wilberforce's biography. Although I'm not happy with the inconsistent citation styles throughout (some book sources get a Harv template, others get a ref tag) this is something that could be resolved later. For now, I can declare a keep opinion, pending comments about the information I removed. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and for your edits to the images. I will work on something about his legacy for the lede. Regarding the citation styles, I specifically asked the question above and was told that this was okay. While I understand your desire to keep this focussed directly on Wilberforce, and I agree with some of the deletions, I don't agree with others, as I think it is important to contextualize his live and achievements, as the bios and other summary articles do. I will go through them one by one in the next couple of days and give more detailed reasoning for each one I restore. Slp1 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is on my list to review with an eye towards getting this closed but it'll probably be several days before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 16:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things eased up quicker than I expected, so here we go!

  • The [further expansion needed] tag in the lead should be assessed for validity and then either removed or resolved as determined best
  • Link William Pitt in the early life section
  • "Wilberforce worked with the members of the African Institution to ensure the enforcement of abolition and to promote abolitionist negotiations with other countries" - this seems to be referring to the abolition of the slave trade, but the phrasing used would imply that Wilbeforce was promoting the abolition of slavery at this time, which he wasn't.
  • "Clarkson, Thomas (1839). The History of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade. London: John w. Parker. p. 157." - surely the W. in John W. Parker should be capitalized, right?
  • "Maddux, Kristy (2010), The Faithful Citizen: Popular Christian Media and Gendered Civic Identities, Baylor University Press, ISBN 978-1-60258-253-8" - is it possible to get a page number for this?

I'm not familiar enough with Wilberforce to do a particularly deep review, but this seems to be in pretty good shape to me. Hog Farm Talk 02:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
1. Expansion tag. I have removed it. The expansion is in the text, per lede, and as noted in a hidden note that the editor apparently did not see.
2. He is already linked in the Lede, and I believe we are only supposed to link once, no?
3. Good point. Changed
4. Yes, for sure. Changed.
5. Page numbers now added. Thank you for spotting that. Slp1 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links can be repeated in both the lead and the main article body, and I think that would be useful to link the second time here, especially since weren't there two William Pitts that were major British politicians? Hog Farm Talk 13:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the info about the linking, I will add it. Slp1 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good enough to keep as well. Hog Farm Talk 13:03, 9 July 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.

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) 5:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [22].

Australian Cattle Dog

edit
Notified: Dippiljemmy, WikiProject Dogs, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of self-published content being used as well as some WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK style content on grooming and training that isn't breed specific, more detail about the latter on the talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Traumnovelle that this article is suitable for a featured article and I thank Traumnovelle for nominating it. It is a well-rounded article on a popular topic. Thanks. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The article is already featured, I'm nominating it due to the self-published and citation needed tag. I think the article just has a few issues that need sorting to retain the status. I notified you due to you having the most contributions whilst still being active on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the editor who did the work to get this article up to featured quality has quit. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, yeah I can have a look and fix up those tags over the next week I think for you. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I think I've sorted out the issues that have been tagged. Hopefully this helps! (Dippiljemmy (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Tail docking claim is still unsourced (I've tagged it).
  • The claim about all Australian states and territories banning it since 2004 is not supported by the source: I've changed it to remove the 'has been illegal since 2004' in favour of 'is illegal'.
  • 'While an Australian Cattle Dog generally works silently, it will bark in alarm or to attract attention.' is still unsourced as the study is about the later general claim about barking and not dogs specifically.
  • The deafness claim was still made to a self-published source: I've rectified it by citing the original study
  • The non-breed specific and guidebook content is still in: If no one objects I will remove this
So overall just the claim about tail docking in the US and how the dogs use their bark whilst working need citing and the guidebook/non-breed specific content should be removed.
But thanks for your help so far, I do think this article can retain featured status with just the above three issues resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the grooming and training paragraphs, only issue that would disqualify this from being a featured article are the two citation needed tags. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: There are some other sections that need citations; I have indicated these with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to add a citation for one, I don't have access to any library sources (both offline and online) currently, although I doubt I'd be able to cite everyone even if I were back home. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Popping in briefly -- the best I've been able to find for tail docking is the UKC standard, which states "The tail is customarily not docked, however, a docked tail should not be penalized.", the American Stock Dog Registry, which says that tail docking is "optional", and the book The Perfect Puppy which states that tail docking is "often" practiced in the US. This is searching online sources only, I'm at work and don't have easy access to my books. Doesn't quite support the statement as written, but perhaps something like "In the United States, the tail may be docked, while it is illegal, except in special circumstances, in Australia ...", though this leaves the open question of the tail status elsewhere. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I can't see this getting an interested editor willing to put in the effort any time soon. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:56, 20 July 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) 5:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [23].

Jason Voorhees

edit
Notified: Bignole, MatthewHoobin, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 26 May 2024

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the sourcing issues and etc. I'm gonna copy-paste the issues we've discovered from the talk page. As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted before, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26,  37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69,  72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.

At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. We also have a quote box in the reception section, and it is literally cited as a line from an Eminem song. Also, his cameo appearances aren't that considered as "Cultural Impact" and should be at "Other appearances section", but anyway this section is poorly organized. This is not what we want from the FA article. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article at the top per the problems BP listed above. I basically agree with all their points we made a month ago and outside the removal of the trivial Eminem reference, a month since we made the comments on the talk page there has only been about two edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 June 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) 1:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [24].

Aston Villa F.C.

edit
Notified: Example user, WikiProject Football, [25]
Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications made: [26][27]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about this while adding on the Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the Liverpool and Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 22 June 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) 1:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [28].

Bernard Quatermass

edit
Notified: Angmering, WikiProject Television, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 2024-05-09

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the Poor formatted references, unsourced statements, unsourced voice actors, appearances section are all unsourced, the use unreliable sources, and lacking of reception section. Anyway, most of the sections more likely needed to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 June 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) 1:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) [29].

7 World Trade Center

edit
Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.

Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about how to handle a Featured article review after an article is split (added: and about the 1e stability criteria) moved to talk page here. The consensus was to proceed with a FAR on this article, and the new article would be processed through FAC when/if ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the quality, but FWIW, I don't think that this fails 1e because I read that criterion as being more focused on edit wars or routine poor quality editing that isn't being addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct (that is also covered in the discussion moved to talk, linked above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if we keep it as a featured article? If you want to demote it make it a good article instead. but i recommend keeping it featured. It's a "forgotten" building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:10, November 13, 2023‎ (talk) 120.28.226.197 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't go from WP:FA class directly to WP:GA class without a separate good article nomination. In any case, as the nominator of this FAR, I'm not recommending demoting the article at this time; I'm merely bringing it up for review. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP 120, please have a look at the instructions at the top of the FAR page; there are several discussion phases in the FAR process, and being on this page doesn't mean demotion is the only outcome. Also, in the archives at WT:FAR, you'll see many discussions of the many reasons we don't/can't make delisted FAs into GAs. If you have other questions about that, we can help you out at WT:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My opniion of this article review:
Keep - A "Forgotten" 9/11 building, As a FA it'll make more people have knowledge of this building and structure on and after 9/11. Article may need some minor changes 120.28.224.32 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FA status is not based on the merit or interestingness of the topic, but rather on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if we give the page some changes? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator of this FAR, to clarify, I nominated this article for FAR precisely because I wanted to know what changes need to be made for this article to retain FA status. I certainly want the article to keep its bronze star, but it is an old FA that has also just undergone a major split. This is why I'm asking for feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts here:

  • "H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture (2007). The New York Academy of Sciences (brochure). H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture." - I don't like the idea of using advertising materials to support text about what this company added to the building; we need something secondary to ensure that we are avoiding puffery/undue weight issues
  • I have a similar concern about the use of the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill book to support what Skidmore, Owings & Merrill added to the building; we don't want the article to contain essentially resume material for the designers
    • Hmmm. On the one hand, it is a primary source, but on the other hand this is basically just WP:ABOUTSELF information, rather than critical commentary added to the article. Nonetheless, I've tried to add secondary sources (mostly the NYT) where possible. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor while space remained available for lease" - we can't really state that this actually happened using a source from August 2006 - it only supports that this was planned to happen
  • "By March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased" - ummm... the source for this is from August 2006 and says that the building was 10-percent leased then
  • "law firm Wilmer Hale" - source for this is about a different law firm named Darby & Darby - our article on WilmerHale does not mention Darby at all; I'm not sure how this supports the content at all
  • "After AMN AMRO was acquired by the Royal Bank of Scotland," - is this an error for ABN AMRO?
  • " Silverstein Properties also has offices and the Silver Suites executive office suites[30] in 7 World Trade Center, along with office space used by the architectural and engineering firms working on 1 World Trade Center, 150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street.[31" - MOS:CURRENT issues
  • The whole paragraph beginning with "The space occupied by Mansueto Ventures has been designed to use the maximum amount of natural light and has an open floor plan ..." - is this level of intricate detail about the way a few individual lessees have arranged their space really due weight?
    • Not really. I moved this to the "Architecture" section and trimmed these sentences. Also, I removed the H3 reference - the entire building was designed with energy-efficient features, so there's no need to single out a specific tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to work to occur, and probably some additional spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! I have to go to bed. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start to fix this page up to keep it as a featured article. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments HF. I've addressed most of these now. As you can probably tell, most of the article was written a long time ago, so it's highly probable that the article's text-source integrity has degraded along the way. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed does need work to occur, Hog Farm, and What things also need to be changed? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius - Do you have access to the NYT articles? I generally don't, so that would hamper a comprehensive spot check from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, yes, I do. I can check the NYT articles and fix any problems that I find. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Late to this but is there any other problems that need to really be fixed? 120.28.224.22 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius, are there still problems that need to be fixed? 120.28.229.213 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, some of the older sources may need spotchecks, and I still need to check the remaining NYT sources (I only checked about five at random and didn't record which ones I looked at). An uninvolved editor should check the prose as well; Hog Farm already conducted one check, but there may be something I missed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources may need to be fixed and spotchecked? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the late response. I meant that someone would have to go through all of the sources, select some randomly (like 10-20%), and check to see whether they verify the text in question. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:

  • 3a - checks out to archived version (current version is just a picture of a building?)
  • 40 - checks out
  • 75 - article has "The building was promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. upon its completion"; the source (a promotional listing) has "The 52-story "green" tower is one of the safest office buildings in the country" which is a less strong claim than what we have in our article
  • 2c - checks out
  • 25 - article has "Prior to opening, in March 2006, the new building's lobby and facade as a filming location for the movie Perfect Stranger."; the source has "A floor of the Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed building will be transformed into a futuristic office with flat-screen panel monitors" when discussing the use as a filming location for Perfect Stranger; "A floor" does not necessarily equal "lobby and facade". I will also note that the sentence in question in our article is a sentence fragment
  • 59 - checks out
  • 8 - article has "Opened in 1987, it was the seventh structure constituting the original World Trade Center building complex" - source supports the 1987 opening but I'm struggling to find where it has this as the seventh structure; the source mentions North Tower, South Tower/Two WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 4 WTC, but that's only five before 7 WTC is opened

Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed these. I will likely have to take a more extensive look at the sources, since 3/7 refs not fully checking out is indeed problematic.
As for the original 7 WTC being the seventh structure in the original WTC, the first complex contained the Marriott World Trade Center, which was unofficially known as "3 World Trade Center". The buildings weren't completed in order, anyway, as 3 WTC was the sixth building to be completed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 25 May 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) 3:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [30].

Exosome complex

edit
Notified: Nagromtpc, WikiProject Biology WikiProject Molecular Biology, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

edit

This article was Featured in 2007, and since then, new research has been done about exosome.These things that I mention below need to be covered in this article:

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pereoptic, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Sorry, I just realized that I should have brought this up on the talk page as well (no one pinged me).   Done Pereoptic Talk✉️   18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Hello again, it has been more than a month since I raised the problems of the article on the talk page. Pereoptic Talk✉️   07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Move to FARC no significant edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 15 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2024&oldid=1235675202"