Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [1].

Caesar cipher

edit
Notified: Matt Crypto, Hut 8.5, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-09-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by Hog Farm in September, this article has large amounts of uncited text and a history section whose prose is disconnected. I agree with this assessment, and I would add that I think the lede needs to be expanded, its usage needs to be updated (as the last entry is from 2011) and a search for additional sources might be warranted. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to try to address this, as I have basically no chance of doing so, but the idea that the usage section needs updating is laughable. The Caesar cipher is incredibly insecure and can be broken easily by small children. Caesar used it against people who largely couldn't read. Anybody who uses it to protect any information in the present day would have to be extremely stupid. While the cipher is often used as an introductory example in cryptography works, I doubt the kind of sourcing coverage expected actually exists. Hut 8.5 07:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Caesar cipher has no practical usage, so there would be no relevant update to the usage section unless it was to include examples of inept conspirators/criminals using it. Simply doing an exhaustion with 26 attempts at trial and error will knock it down Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree. I'm not really sure what this FAR is about... there are a few unrerefernced statements, but I doubt it will be too hard to find verifications for those. Otherwise it seems like a decent well-written summary of the topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no expectation for updating because this isn't used anymore, but this if probably one of the least organized FA's I've ever read. We go from the Caesars to Al-Kindi to the mezuzah to personal ads to WWI Russia etc. I don't think something that's basically just a list of examples would ever pass FAC today. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's realistically possible to write a History section for this topic which doesn't jump around like that because that's all you've got to work with. The Caesar cipher doesn't have a continuous record of usage to describe, just isolated examples of where somebody used it for something. Hut 8.5 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the concerns when I was nominating the article was the lack of sources used. Bauer is listed in the bibliography but is not cited. Should it be added in? I have also found some other sources through WP:LIBRARY whose inclusion I think should be considered, especially because of the short length of the article:

Hopefully this will help expand the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the mere fact the article is short is not necessarily a problem. It is a small topic. The features article criteria only say that the article needs to be comprehensive (neglects no major facts or details). I don't see any argument here that the article neglects major facts or details. Of the sources you've linked to:
  • "Historical Ciphers and Ancient Languages" is a brief overview of this history of cryptography which mentions the Caesar cipher as an example. It does not contain anything which is not in the article.
  • "Early Medieval Cryptography, Textual Errors, and Scribal Agency" is about several early medieval manuscripts which use cryptograms, and it mentions that some of them are encrypted with the Caesar cipher. For details on this readers are referred to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, one of the main sources used for the Wikipedia article. While we could mention these manuscripts as another example in this History section it's not something which could be used to deliver a substantial expansion of the article. The source is largely interested in fine textual details of the manuscripts and mistakes made by the scribes, which are well out of scope here.
  • "The Mathematics of Secrets Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption", to judge from the Google Books preview, uses the Caesar cipher as an introductory example. Books on cryptography often use it for this purpose because it's easy to understand and because it can be used to illustrate important concepts. I'm sure you could find quite a few other similar books which use it as an introductory example like this, but they don't add anything to what's in the article.
Hut 8.5 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hut 8.5: Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I agree that a short article is not necessarily a problem. When an article is short, I try to find additional sources to ensure that the article meets the 1b comprehensive requirements of WP:FA? If none are found, then I can be confident that the article is comprehensive. However, I found some sources after a quick search, outlined above, and there were some aspects that could be added to the article (like the Medieval information). Since it is a shorter article, adding information is not as much of a concern and I think should be considered. I also think a search for more sources should be made to see if there is information to add to the History section that could prevent the large gaps that currently exist in that section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be possible to come up with some more obscure examples of usage, like that one medieval manuscript, but that doesn't mean the article fails 1b, which says only that the article should neglect no major facts or details (not neglect any facts or details). I don't think the article is missing any major facts or details. Adding more isolated/obscure examples to the History section would also make it more disconnected, which is something else you've objected to. If you don't think the article meets 1b then I would expect you to at the very least point to aspects which should be covered in greater detail. Instead it looks like you Googled it and posted whatever came up. Hut 8.5 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: the initial nomination raised problems of sourcing and comprehensiveness; I can see no remnant of these problems in the article. Perhaps I would recommend one or two more sentences in the lead, but I do not believe that to be any more than a personal preference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: - Any thoughts on this? I personally don't know that this would pass FAC today in its current shape, but it looks like at least parts of my notice from way-back-when were in error. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm. I still have concerns about this article. After reading the discussion above, this article might not have enough sources about its historical use for this to be able to remain a featured article at this time. I will respect the decision of the co-ords, whether it is kept or delisted, but I think the co-ords will need to make a judgment call soon unless new voices comment here. I will note that, if this is kept, it is very likely to appear as TFA soon (as math articles are less common at TFA, so I would want to nominate an article like this) so if editors do not think it is of good enough quality to be TFA, they should comment below. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs attribution of opinions and citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy that there's some points needing attribution/citation, so Move to FARC (which does not preclude additional work), as there hasn't been any work towards those points. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to look back in soon, but it'll probably be next week. Hog Farm Talk 17:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This may be a holdover from an earlier time when Jewish people were not allowed to have mezuzot." (article text) vs. source "a carryover from the time when Jewish people were not allowed to have mezuzahs". Probably close paraphrasing issues
  • "which Orthodox belief holds keeps the forces of evil in check" - I'm not Jewish, and had trouble fully comprehending all of the religious terminology in the source, but it seems to be attributing this belief to the teachings of Kabbalah, which are a subject of dispute in Orthodox Judaism I think?
  • " Kahn, David (1967). The Codebreakers. ISBN 978-0-684-83130-5." - page number needed
  • "Chris Savarese and Brian Hart, The Caesar Cipher, 1999" - publisher needed

Once these are closed, I think the article is probably decent enough to close the FAR as kept. I don't think this is our best featured article, but I'm not seeing anything that warrants delisting now that the unsourced content and attribution issues have been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the last two points. I'm also not Jewish and I don't know anything about that aspect of the topic so I'd have to do some research before dealing with that. The source website represents a particular branch of Hasidic Judaism though and might not be applicable more generally, maybe we can find a better one. Hut 8.5 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the Hebrew paragraph with different sources. I couldn't find that many sources which discuss this particular topic, and there's almost nothing which discusses it in much detail, so I suspect it isn't very important. For example Kahn devotes several pages to a summary of Hebrew ciphers used in religious texts but he doesn't mention this one at all. The source which the article previously used is the only one I could find which discussed the wider significance or meaning of this text, and since it only appears to relate to one particular branch of Judaism and isn't exactly clear I think it's best if we don't use it. Hut 8.5 18:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, I guess - nothing glaring, but I wouldn't recommend running this as TFA. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Close w/o FARC along the same lines as Hog Farm (it's good enough, but wouldn't be thrilled to see it on the main page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I philosophically disagree with a "Keep, but don't want it to appear as TFA" argument as I believe one of the roles of FAC/FAR is to identify articles for TFA. However, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean that everyone has to agree; I will not be bothered if this FAR closes as keep over my disagreement, especially since this FAR has been open for a long time already. Z1720 (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think "I don't want it to appear TFA" is out of line with WP:WIAFA. If I had been able to speak plainly while I was FAC delegate, I would have said I don't really want all the Meteorological history of ... obscure songs ... etc to appear TFA either, as they bore readers even if they meet FA standards. But today, what I mean when I say this is I don't want to see the article nominated at WP:TFA/R just because it passed FAC or FAR; there are more worthy mainpage candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 25 May 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [2].

Supernova

edit
Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06

Review section

edit

Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.
Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)
My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not vague enough thou. There are too many unsourced statements and some short paragraohs should be formatted. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
mikeu: there are a couple uncited paragraphs in "Type II", one in "Type Ib and Ic", one in "Light curves", six in "Energy output", and three in "Progenitor". Nothing leaps out at me as inaccurate — the people who wrote the text in the first place probably knew what they were doing! — but I'm not a specialist and may have overlooked something. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[3][4][5] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the duplicated links with a view to replacing some when the article is close to being FA standard again. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus:

  • The "Observation history" section of the Supernova article discusses supernovae types before they have been covered by the "Classification" section. For this reason I think the "Observation history" section should be moved down below "Classification". It could possibly go before the "Current models" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why "Observation history" and "Discovery" are separate sections; they read like one big section that should be organized chronologically. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They even point to the same main article. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a crack at merging the two sections, performing some re-organization in the process. Praemonitus (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think drop the 1979 and 2014 entries. That leaves a fairly comprehensive list up to 1680, plus S Andromedae in 1885 and SN1987A. Maybe drop one or two of the uncertain old ones? The 386 event doesn't have an article and it is uncertain if it was even a supernova. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for now I just constrained it to the Local Group. Praemonitus (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Observation history" section discusses the supernovae type of "SN 2016gkg" before types have been explained. I'm not clear that the last three paragraphs of the section are even needed here. They are more like "Recent findings" of a mildly significant nature. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People do like to tack on the latest piece of "exciting" news they read. Usually it isn't something of longterm of hirtorical importance. I agree it could be pruned. Or even better, expanded but with the emphasis on discoveries of more lasting significance, probably mainly older ones. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the action of trimming back the last, rather bloated paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Non-standard Type Ia" section appears to need some work. It could use a proper introduction, not just a series of cases. Clarification is lacking in many paragraphs. For example, the sentence that begins "Abnormally bright type Ia supernovae occur" is a muddle. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be my fault. I don't really know a lot about Type Ias and even less about the peculiar ones, so that is a pretty weak area. Unfortunately type Ia supernova isn't much help. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote that particularly muddled sentence, but the subsection is still choppy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reference that may be useful: Gal-Yam, Avishay (2017). "Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae". Handbook of Supernovae. Springer. pp. 195–237. arXiv:1611.09353. Bibcode:2017hsn..book..195G. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_35. ISBN 978-3-319-21845-8. OCLC 1016955731. Section 2.2 is about "Peculiar Type Ia Supernovae". XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a common definition of the "Non-Standard Type Ia" supernovae. The double white dwarf model just appears to be the standard second model. Hence I changed the section name. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice image, but there are lots of other nice, and real, images. Type IIb supernova in M81, so a little unusual, mentioned in the text, but the image doesn't really add anything. SN 1993J has an article, so I wikilinked the caption, but it is wikilinked in the text and the image is in the linked article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement, "Extremely luminous stars at near solar metallicity will lose all their hydrogen before they reach core collapse and so will not form a type II supernova" is then followed by the "Type Ib and Ic" where a supernova forms that has lost its hydrogen. This is ambiguous. Is the statement just saying it can't be a type II? Or that it can't form a supernova period? This and the following sentence are unsourced, it appears. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just that any supernova won't be type II. The reference after the first sentence of the paragraph can confirm this. Also, it is something of an unsolved problem whether stars higher than the cutoff mass for producing a type II supernova will produce any supernova at all. Some or all of them may produce a type Ib or Ic, or neither. The referenced paper is dedicated to this problem. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I rewrote it slightly so that is clear. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the energy that disrupts each type of supernovae is delivered promptly, the light curves are dominated by subsequent radioactive heating of the rapidly expanding ejecta." Huh? The word "disrupts" doesn't quite make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is referring to the initial implosion/explosion. That is a *very* rapid event, with gravitational potential energy causing heating and photodisintegration followed by enormous neutrino generation and (somehow) the conversion of the initial inward collapse into an outward explosion all within seconds, but the material that is ejected into space then radiates for various reasons for months or years. Radioactivity from isotopes created during supernova nucleosynthesis in that very rapid implosion/explosion is one of the dominant sources of that electromagnetic radiation. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I modified it slightly for clarify. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The intensely radioactive nature of the ejecta gases, which is now known to be correct for most supernovae, was first calculated on sound nucleosynthesis grounds in the late 1960s." What does 'correct' mean here? Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct" would presumably mean that it has been verified, observed, and become consensus understanding. It was none of these things in the 1960s. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-ordered the sentence for clarity. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So just based on that very cursory look, this FAR should not be closed. I'm sympathetic to the problem of nominators who don't participate in the FARs they nom, but at the end of the day, we are sometime going to have to deal with dozens of non-compliant planet FAs in a WikiProject that has declined and become inactive, and I'd not like to start a precedent that we're going to accept deficient planetary FAs because of those circumstances.
Move to FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "not well studied" applies as much now as it did when the line was written, because it's referring to a category of stars that are generally not well studied. I've tweaked the phrasing elsewhere in that paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bc9:

Two of them now have in-caption attribution, and the third looks fixable but will need a little work. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've just added the references to Commons as well (see File:SNIacurva.png and File:SNIIcurva.svg). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the third one, some curves are already on Commons and sourced, such as: File:SN 2002cx Lightcurve.svg, File:SAndLightCurve.png, File:SN1987ALightCurve.png, File:Sn2006gy light curve.jpg, and File:Supernovae lightcurves.svg. We could use one of those and/or "merge them" into one graph. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about swapping out the image with the last one you mentioned, but I think I was able to find adequate sources for the plot the article currently uses. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Moving this as it appears to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to help here, but I simply do not have time to try to edit around ridiculously long strings containing up to 100 first and last name parameters in a citation.

As much as I would like to help, the crazy referencing standard here is off-putting. (In medical content, we use vauthors and shorten to three authors et al). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Sample citation

 | title=The superluminous transient ASASSN-15lh as a tidal disruption event from a Kerr black hole
 | last1=Leloudas | first1=G. | last2=Fraser | first2=M.
 | last3=Stone | first3=N. C. | last4=van Velzen | first4=S.
 | last5=Jonker | first5=P. G. | last6=Arcavi | first6=I.
 | last7=Fremling | first7=C. | last8=Maund | first8=J. R.
 | last9=Smartt | first9=S. J. | last10=Krìhler | first10=T.
 | last11=Miller-Jones | first11=J. C. A. | last12=Vreeswijk | first12=P. M.
 | last13=Gal-Yam | first13=A. | last14=Mazzali | first14=P. A.
 | last15=De Cia | first15=A. | last16=Howell | first16=D. A.
 | last17=Inserra | first17=C. | last18=Patat | first18=F.
 | last19=de Ugarte Postigo | first19=A. | last20=Yaron | first20=O.
 | last21=Ashall | first21=C. | last22=Bar | first22=I.
 | last23=Campbell | first23=H. | last24=Chen | first24=T. -W.
 | last25=Childress | first25=M. | last26=Elias-Rosa | first26=N.
 | last27=Harmanen | first27=J. | last28=Hosseinzadeh | first28=G.
 | last29=Johansson | first29=J. | last30=Kangas | first30=T.
 | last31=Kankare | first31=E. | last32=Kim | first32=S.
 | last33=Kuncarayakti | first33=H. | last34=Lyman | first34=J.
 | last35=Magee | first35=M. R. | last36=Maguire | first36=K.
 | last37=Malesani | first37=D. | last38=Mattila | first38=S.
 | last39=McCully | first39=C. V. | last40=Nicholl | first40=M.
 | last41=Prentice | first41=S. | last42=Romero-Cañizales | first42=C.
 | last43=Schulze | first43=S. | last44=Smith | first44=K. W.
 | last45=Sollerman | first45=J. | last46=Sullivan | first46=M.
 | last47=Tucker | first47=B. E. | last48=Valenti | first48=S.
 | last49=Wheeler | first49=J. C. | last50=Young | first50=D. R.
 | journal=Nature Astronomy | year=2016
 | volume=1 | issue=2 | page=0002
 | arxiv=1609.02927 | bibcode=2016NatAs...1E...2L
 | doi=10.1038/s41550-016-0002 | s2cid=73645264

When I'm in edit mode, I want to be able to easily see the year of the citation for evaluating text next to the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just revisited the article, and I agree with the original FAR statement from May of last year. There are too few inline cites. I checked one of the sources - an in depth scientific paper, that info had been summarised in a less than encyclopaedic manner. The summary involved interpretation of data i.e. WP:OR. So we have both OR and WP:V problems. This article needs someone to comb through the sources and given the amount of time this has been here I don't think that is going to happen. My delist stands. Desertarun (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source did you check? I haven't noticed anything I'd call OR or V problems. Every paragraph is cited, apart from a couple short ones that just summarize the sections that follow, and with 229 citations (some of them used as many as 8 times each) the overall density of them does not seem very low. Without more specifics, no one can do anything. My "inclined to keep" stands. XOR'easter (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This^. As described several times, any weaknesses in referencing which have been pointed out have been addressed fairly promptly. If anyone thinks there are still problems with the references, these should be pointed out in some detail and they can either be discussed or fixed. Just making a sweeping claim that the article fails WP:OR or WP:V doesn't help anyone and doesn't improve the article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This^. If you see bundled refs or long paragraphs with just one reference - rewrite with inline cites. Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not nearly specific enough to be actionable. Citations at the end of a paragraph are inline. So are bundled references. Per WP:CITEDENSE, Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all. This is a technical article, but one with a fairly broad scope. Some parts will naturally have rapid-fire footnotes because they contain more details, while other parts will be more sweeping because they are more introductory/overview in nature. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the section in which I found OR. Desertarun (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What claim was actually "original"? XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more tags. I have a degree in physics. Sadly a big chunk of the article is in poor shape. Desertarun (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every tag you've put on looks either really easily fixable (e.g., the basic naming convention is widely documented) or misplaced. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i've finished tagging for today, i'll continue from thermal runaway tomorrow. You do realise the prose in this is kind of terrible in places don't you? Its an enormous ask to fix this article. Desertarun (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which places? What stands out as particularly bad in relation to, well, most scientific writing? (What, for example, is unclear about A small number of type Ia supernovae exhibit unusual features, such as non-standard luminosity or broadened light curves, and these are typically classified by referring to the earliest example showing similar features?) Identify them and we can fix them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A full stop after the word "curves" would make it easier to read. Desertarun (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's down to a matter of taste. To me, splitting that line in two would make it more choppy. Maybe Lithopsian can make the call. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made no change, but someone else might attempt to make it better. Possibly splitting the first sentence at "curves", but then merging the split section with the following sentence to which it is very closely tied. Lithopsian (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that sentence. I think. Desertarun, since more specificity on your concerns is needed, it might be helpful to explore details in a section all your own at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Supernova/archive1, and then summarize back to here when all is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On number of authors, this can easily be limited. The "default" as applied, for example, by Citation Bot, is 29 which is quite a lot! Pick a number, if everyone agrees, I'll apply it. Just for the record, three isn't the number I'd pick, but if that's what people want then so be it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about a display-author limit which impacts output; I mean, leave them out all together so the aren't so hard to edit around when in edit mode. In medical articles I edit, the rule I use is one that was established by the Diberri format eons ago ... if there are more than five authors, truncate to three plus et al. Some people prefer to truncate to six; I fail to see why we need more than three authors. It's editing around those gynormous strings that is awful. Another way to avoid having to edit around them is to move to an sfn style. See dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, mine is not an actionable objection relative to FA status; it's just a frustration that I can't evaluate content in edit mode relative to publication date when the content is so chunked up with unnecessary citation info. Others may have other ways of looking at content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished a run through and added some tags. I'm going to assume these will be fixed and on that basis i'm switching my delist comment to neutral and unwatching the article and FAR (The topic area just isn't of much interest to me.) I'm generally not happy about dense science articles being summarised by WP editors but its not a barrier to FA articles. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've filled in all the {{citation needed}}s. I left a {{when}} and a {{clarify}}, because neither of them look ambiguous or unclear to me, but maybe someone else has a different opinion. Also, I still don't know what reads as "original" in the section tagged as possibly containing such. XOR'easter (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the 'OR' tag from the Milky Way Candidates section as it was unexplained and the content appears to be reasonable and properly cited. The 'when' tag is questionable, so I modified the text instead to try and clarify the meaning. The 'clarify' sentence seemed clear, but I changed 'classified' to 'categorized'. Praemonitus (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got curious and checked the page views and other such statistics today. Turns out that xtools is crediting me with the authorship of exactly 20,000 characters! Now I'm almost afraid to edit the page again.... XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly rewritten. "little-studied" is still in there since that is supported by the referenced paper, but maybe there is something more recent that can be said about this. Lithopsian (talk) 16:23, 29 May 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) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [6].

Early life of Keith Miller

edit
Notified: Mass message send targets

Procedural FAR per merger proposal of this article to Keith Miller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this be on hold until consensus is determined in the merge proposal, then this can be speedily dealt with afterwards. If you are reading this, please give your perspective on the merge proposal in Sandy's link above. Thanks Sandy for setting up this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And it looks like we've got Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Keith Miller/1 ongoing now too. Hog Farm Talk 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Article has now been merged and redirected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 20 June 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) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [7].

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series)

edit
Notified: various, January 2023

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the detailed and actionable list of comments left on talk by David Fuchs. Concerns include prose, content/comprehensiveness, and organization (for example lack of MOS:LEAD compliance). (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I don't really have the time at present to implement the changes in the initial review - I had a go, but I no longer have access to any of the 'making of' type books and the 'Douglas Adams papers' documentary on Radio 4 casts doubts on some of the narrative in those anyway. Bob talk 12:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 10 June 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) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [8].

David Lovering

edit
Notified: various, April 2023

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues raised on the talk page, including lack of updating on post-2007 career. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 June 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) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [9].

Mary: A Fiction

edit
Notified: Wadewitz (deceased), WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Women writers,, Women in Green, 2021-03-03, 2023-03-06

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of missing citations and original research concerns. SandyGeorgia noted these concerns in 2021, but they are still present in the article when I checked in March. I also wonder if the Reception section can be updated with additional sources, especially more recent ones. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do see room for improvement for this article, but after a first read through I don't have major concerns about original research. It does have more of the tone of a journal article than an encyclopedia at times, but everything still reads to me as "simple" reporting of scholarly consensus. The bibliography also doesn't look terribly out of date (e.g., the works from the 90s and 00s remain to my knowledge well-regarded works on Wollstonecraft, whose fiction isn't studied with great intensity). I did some preliminary research for more up to date sources and found the following:
I think it would be sufficient to read the Wikipedia article closely with the Broadview edition in-hand, and supply any missing/undercited information from the Broadview. A very enthusiastic person might find more to add from other sources but I don't think they are vital for a comprehensive and accurate article. A prose editing pass could also go through and making the sentence-level writing more boring. I can't guarantee I'll get around to any of these tasks myself, but I will keep the tabs open for convenient poking, and I hope these sources are helpful for others. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 June 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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [10].

Somerset

edit
Notified: Rodw, WikiProject Somerset, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject England, WikiProject Geography, 2021-03-28 2022-06-24

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about the article being outdated. The history section ends at 1941, the economy section ends at 2008, the chart of gaining A-C in the Education section is from 2006, and the Demography section needs to change to reflect the 2021 census. The Geography section also has unsourced statements. Some of these issues were brought up in 2021, but still remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 27 May 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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [11].

Dungeons & Dragons (album)

edit
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2021-03-28

Review section

edit

This 2007 Featured article was noticed on 2021-03-28 for sourcing issues, with no follow up to additional query in February 2022. There are also prose issues, which I will detail if someone intends to work on this. Some TLC is needed to bring this to FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @J Milburn who was the main editor to work on this. Also @Sariel Xilo in case he's got anything that could be used here. BOZ (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm afraid I don't have the time to take the lead on this at present, and I worry that the sourcing issues might be difficult to overcome. But if someone else is able/willing to take the lead, I'm happy to contribute. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 27 May 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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [12].

Henry Moore

edit
Notified: Solipsist, (FAC nominator) Caeciliusinhorto, (significant contributor), Ceoil, (significant contributor, FAR commentator), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject England, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Yorkshire, WikiProject London, 2023-04-16

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about the quality of the sources. Many references are to museum websites and news articles, while numerous books from high-quality publishers are listed in Further reading, unused as references in the article. Furthermore, a search on various databases produced several academic journals which could also replace the lower-quality sources currently used as references. No one responded to my talk page notice, so here we are. I am hoping that this can be ready for a TFA run on Moore's 150th birthday (July 30). Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are issues with comprehensiveness and sourcing: in particular I would expect reference to Christa Lichtenstern's Henry Moore: Work, Theory, Impact (available on archive.org), and discussion of Moore's drawings outside of the Shelter drawings (possibly with reference to the 2019 Henry Moore Drawings: The Art of Seeing exhibition catalogue). There are also half a dozen {{citation needed}} tags that need resolving, and the citations are not consistently formatted.
I'd be happy to help work on this if others are keen, but I haven't done much serious wikipedia content work so far this year and I don't really have the enthusiasm to make a big project of this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel similar to Caeciliusinhorto; I like Moore somewhat, but it wouldn't be enough to go full blown on saving. BTY, also agree that this FAR is needed. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 May 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) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [13].

Yellowstone National Park

edit
Notified: MONGO, Mav, Mike Cline, Brian W. Schaller, Civil Engineer III, WP Protected areas, WP Montana, WP Volcanoes, WP Geology, WP World Heritage Sites, WP USA, WP National Archives, noticed in March 2021

Review section

edit

Unfortunately, this very early FA needs some love and care. It looks like content throughout the article will need to be updated. While the article currently states "There are almost 60 species of mammals in the park,", the NPS park facts under wildlife lists today lists 67 species of mammals, and there are similar disagreements, such as 8 vs 9 species of conifers. Many of the animal population figures will also need updating. Extensive editing by editors unfamiliar with the featured article criteria seems to have damaged the article, as uncited text has accumulated and in several places where checked, the sources listed do not support all of the text they are backing up. Note: The #2 editor per Articlestats has not been informed, as their primary contribution is simply a giant bot run for referencing formatting and they do not normally edit in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I am very willing to work on aspects of the YNP FA review, some care must be taken when citing apparent “disagreements” in the article. For example the the 60 vs 67 species of mammal disconnect is cited by Hog Farm is not entirely accurate. The NPS Park Facts does not actually list the 67 species, it merely says there are 67 and only identifies 40 in the list. Indeed the phrasing can be improved, but the FACTs will be tougher to sort out as some mammal species are migratory (bats) and may only be transitory in the park. Just some thoughts to ponder. Mike Cline (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but we'll still need to have a source supporting the numbers we choose. The spot with mammals I pointed out is sourced to the NPS park facts page, which now has a different number than the one in the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mike Cline are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cline last edited the article on February 17. Looking at this version:

  • Maintenance tags
  • Uncited, tour-guide-ish content (eg "Facilities in the Old Faithful, Canyon and Mammoth Hot Springs areas of the park are very busy during the summer months. Traffic jams created by road construction or by people observing wildlife can result in long delays.")
  • MOS:SANDWICHing of images
  • Femke any sources dealing with climate change ?
  • Collapsed tables within text (MOS:COLLAPSE)
  • Inconsistent and incomplete citations, not at a professional standard (sources alternate between nps.gov, National Park Service, and both); missing publishers (eg, this is UNESCO); inconsistent author name style (some are last name first, others are first name first); incomplete citations (eg [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691642 maybe this is intended, if so, cite journal ... also Walker, Paul K. (March 2022). "Number 3-Engineer Historical Studies-Captain William Ludlow's Report of Reconnaissance from Carrol Montana Territory on Upper Missouri to the Yellowstone National Park and Return in the Summer of 1875" (PDF). publications.usace.army.mil.)
  • Can External links benefit from pruning?
  • Extensive use of very dated sources, and clicking on any one of them randomly reveals problems. Sample
    Boating is prohibited on rivers and creeks except for a 5 miles (8.0 km) stretch of the Lewis River between Lewis and Shoshone lakes, and it is open to non-motorized use only. Yellowstone Lake has a marina at Bridge Bay while there is a boat ramp at the Lewis lake campground.
    "Boating in Yellowstone National Park". National Park Service. September 18, 2006. Archived from the original on November 9, 2013. Retrieved March 21, 2007.
  • Here is the oft-cited park facts page:
    • We say 3468 square miles, they say 3472.
    • We say 1000 archeological sites, they say 1800.
    • We say five National Historic Landmarks, they say 25 National Register of Historic Places
    • We say eight species of conifer, they say nine.
    • We say nine visitor centers, they say eleven.
      And so it goes for any source one checks; there has been no attempt to keep this article updated. I haven't even checked whether we need any PD attribution.

Move to FARC, it has been months, the issues have not been addressed, and no one is actively working on the article. This is the cumulative diff since Mike Cline's last edit over two months ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC as well. The "almost 60" issue I brought up when bringing the article to FAR is still present in the article with the same 2015-accessed source. While Mike Cline points out that there are sometimes reasons to disagree with the NPS given numbers, we still need to have sources that actually support the article content. Hog Farm Talk 13:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 30 April 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) 3:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [14].

The Log from the Sea of Cortez

edit
Notified: various, 27 January

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues noted on the talk page notice, as well as some MOS:TIME issues I noticed myself. There have been no edits since the notice was placed early this year. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 20 May 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/June_2023&oldid=1161651552"