Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2021

< 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) 3:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [1].

Group (mathematics)

edit
Notified:Jakob.scholbach [2],David Eppstein, [3], WP Math, talk page notice 2021-04-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article was promoted in 2008 and current FA requirements are more demanding particularly with regard to citations, which are lacking for sections of this article. Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards I notified WikiProject Math. Also, FAR recently went back from a one-week wait period to a two-week wait after notifying the talk page (some editors did not realize this), so this FAR might be a week early. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Math is a little different, as some of the math stuff is probably self-proving per WP:WTC. But there is some stuff in here that's not self-proving that ought to have citations, such as "Further abstract algebraic concepts such as modules, vector spaces and algebras also form groups" or "Such spontaneous symmetry breaking has found further application in elementary particle physics, where its occurrence is related to the appearance of Goldstone bosons.". Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Goldstone claim needs a citation, but modules, vector spaces, and algebras are very basic algebraic structures that extend groups by adding more structure, as anyone with any familiarity of those concepts would already know, so that statement is not so much a claim as a pointer to closely related topics, much like an article on lions would probably have a sentence mentioning tigers and leopards. When asked for what specifically needed citation on the article talk page, the nominator, Graham Beards, was non-responsive. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: - Would it be effective to on a talk page somewhere for me to come up with statements that might need citations, so there's at least an clear idea about what needs done here? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a few examples of statements that may need citations on talk. Many paragraphs will fall squarely under 'domain-specific knowledge', and won't need citations. I don't quite have that knowledge, having taken only a bit of group theory at uni. More input welcome :). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those examples, FemkeMilene. Overall, I think the article is in pretty good shape. A little rephrasing and footnoting here and there, and I'd be happy with it. Also, it seems to have accumulated references in a few different styles; those should be made uniform. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My first impression is that the examples and applications section could do with making the examples more accessible. I looked in particular at Group (mathematics)#Symmetry_groups and saw that there were no elementary examples of what symmetry groups were (it talks about symmetry groups being "of geometric nature" before moving to the advanced topic of symmetries of polynomials), and then when it talked about molecular symmetry it talks about advanced topics such as phase transitions without bread-and-butter matters such as them being useful to chemists in predicting the properties of simple molecules. I'll look at other sections, but my guess is that if such an expositional gift of a topic as permutation groups runs before it walks, I'll see the same disease elsewhere. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article opens with an elaborate example of a symmetry group, the symmetry group of a square. I don't know how much more introductory you want things to be there. The symmetries of polynomials are explained further down in the section on Galois groups. Again, this is as introductory as it can be.
That said, groups just so ubiquitous, so that it is impossible to both cover a reasonable broadness, and at the same time be introductory (or non-shallow!). We do have a lot of introductory content early on, some of the later sections are less so. IMO, this is fully deservedly so. You might want to familiarize with the lengthy(!) discussions at the FA nomination. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 09:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right: I was thrown off by the language "introductory symmetry group". I've rephrased this sentence so the connection to the examples section and the later section on Galois theory is clearer. I'm still not happy with this subsection: geometric symmetry groups are huge in physics and chemistry and I think this isn't really made clear, but I've looked at the other subsections in examples and applications and I find them much better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene: - Yeah, I'll take a look. I've never been taught group theory (and I graduate from college this month, so kudos to the America education system), so I'll likely to come across as completely clueless here. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene and Hog Farm: Update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My remarks have been addressed, but the article editors have been identifying and solving more issues that go over my head: @David Eppstein, @Jakob.scholbach: could you give an update? I'll have a final look over the article when you're done. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, this article does not imperatively need any further substantial edits to have FA-level. Unless I am overlooking something the only "open" point is that Quondum raised the idea of reworking through two subsections (see talk). I have voiced my dissent with their ideas there on talk, and prefer not to implement Quondum's suggestion there, but in any cases this would be a smaller-scope edit and nothing that would require upholding a decision of the FA status of this article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jakob on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think my concerns have been addressed, although 95% of this article went straight over my head, so I don't feel confident giving an opinion on this. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to close without farc for one thing. The first two sentences are too complicated imo. The article overall does a good job being understandable, but I think the starts let's us down.
    In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a binary operation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that conditions called group axioms are satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions are familiar from many mathematical structures, such as number systems: for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group.
    • Both are a bit too long
    • I think that 'combines any two elements to form a third element' explains the word 'binary', right? If so, can we drop it to avoid starting with jargon?
    • the 'called group axioms' can be moved to the second sentence maybe to shorten the first.
    • I think having such as and for example in close proximity is poor prose.
    • Is there is an easier synonym for endowed?
    In mathematics, a group is a set equipped with a binary operation that combines any two elements to form a third element in such a way that three conditions called group axioms are satisfied, namely associativity, identity and invertibility. These conditions, called group axioms, are familiar from many mathematical structures such as number systems: for example, the integers endowed with the addition operation form a group.
    Neither an expert, nor a prose genius here, so happy for others to have a go. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated your suggestions. About the binary operation: in a way this "jargon" was explained right after, so I think this is an OK approach. But since it is not absolutely crucial to mention the word binary there I followed your idea and dropped it. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: - As nominator, do you have anything further to add here? Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They indicated on their talk page they wanted to stand back from the review: User_talk:Graham_Beards#Group_FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

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) 1:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC) [4].

Tamil language

edit
Notified: Sundar, WikiProject India, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sri Lanka, WikiProject Mauritius, diff for talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because as Hog Farm noted on the talk page a month ago, there is lots of unsourced content and so far no one tried to fix it. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2021 (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) 3:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [5].

NeXT

edit
Notified: WikiProject Apple Inc., WikiProject Computing, 3-29-21

Review section

edit

This is another promotion from the late 2000s that would be quickfailed if reviewed by today standards. Its nominator and the one that promoted it to FA status has been inactive on Wikipedia since 2015, which means I didn't notify them. The problems with this article boil down to the fact that it's not well put together. Uncited statements (even paragraph-long uncited material) abound, there is essential info in its lead (and even quoteboxes) that should be in the body but isn't, and its prose suffers from tech jargon either not elaborated or linked to another article; what is a workstation? "general-purpose DSP chip"? "programming environment standard"? "application layer"? "vector drawing program"? Additionally, it has scant retrospective analysis, which including it would really help its seemingly lackluster Legacy section. Other indicators this needs a copyedit. A subsection "1996–97: purchase by Apple" talks about many things that occurred after that, as late as 2001, meaning its subsection name is blatantly wrong 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: can this be put on hold or removed until the notification period has passed? HumanxAnthro, is there a reason you did not follow the FAR instructions on the two to three week wait after notification? Also, a nominator inactive since 2015 should be notified anyway; they may still follow their talk page or have talk page stalkers with similar content-area interests. Also, there are several other active editors in the edit count tool who could be notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you said the guidelines were one week after notification, not "two to three." Wait, what? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn’t say that (and that one should have been removed, too). I asked then if there had been another notification more than a week ago, and Femke mentioned there was one ten days ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been just more than a week, so we've already passed the notification period, right? I think...? Um.... I'm getting confused, what's going on? 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold The guidance says 'two to three weeks'. DrKay (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restarted. No action on talk. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, structure and comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2021 (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) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [6].

Seattle

edit
Notified: Michael Snow, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Washington, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Seattle, diff for talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted by RetiredDuke a while back on the talk page, the article has issues with needing citations, bloat (11,500 words readable prose), image sandwiching, and lack of updating. The stuff that is sourced looks mostly OK, so I think the article is fixable but it will take a considerable amount of work. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a heading that says the article needs some updating, so that people would know. Blue Jay (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Any updates on progress so far? Blue Jay (talk) 03:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just FYI there will be new demographic information on Seattle released on May 27th from the US 2020 Census, which should be incorporated. Mattximus (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2021 (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) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [7].

Dartmouth College

edit
Notified: Kane5187, ElKevbo, Esrever, Contributor321, Hal333, WP New Hampshire, WP Dartmouth, WP Higher Education, talk page notice 2020-11-30

Review section

edit

This is a 2007 FA that has not been maintained to FA standards, and that has not been improved since the talk page notice six months ago. Issues include poor image layout, out of control galleries, listiness and single-sentence paragraphs, citation overkill, incomplete citations, dated information, uncited text, inadequate use of summary style (especially noticeable in the alumni section), and the lead reads as promotional rather than a summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL333

  • Images lack alt text.
  • The largest problem is the near complete reliance on primary sources published by Dartmouth.
  • Most, if not all, of the citations in the lede should be removed per WP:LEADCITE.

Those are the most glaring big picture issues I see. ~ HAL333 21:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2021 (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) 3:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [8].

Theramenes

edit
Notified: Robth, WP Biography, WP MILHIST, WP Politics, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Greece, 2020-12-26

Review section

edit

One of the oldest ones remaining on the list at WP:URFA/2020, this 2006 promotion is not at current FA sourcing standards. Large chunks of the article (including entire paragraphs and the entire overthrowing the democracy section) are sourced only to ancient sources. While primary sources are okay in light doses in FAs, use of ancient sources need to be careful, and they are overused here. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2021 (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) 3:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC) [9].

Extratropical cyclone

edit
Notified: Crimsone, Thegreatdr, WikiProject Non-tropical storms, Notice given 2021-01-27

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has numerous issues I outlined on the talk page, including a lede that needs expansion, missing citations marked with citation needed templates, and concerns that the latest "Historical storms" listed is Hurricane Sandy in 2012, making me believe that this needs an update. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do about updating it, as I update tropical cyclone which is also at FAR.Jason Rees (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should this one be placed on hold? I think it's undesirable for somebody to "have to" rescue two articles at FAR simultaneously, and putting it on hold makes that burden less. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support putting this article on hold. If I knew Jason Rees would work on it, I wouldn't have put it up for FAR. [[User:|Z1720]] (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest @Z1720: I think I missed your talk page message at the time. Anyway while I support putting extratropical cyclone on hold, I have a rough idea to tweak tropical, subtropical and extratropical cyclone at the same time as they are similar.Jason Rees (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to leave this in the FAR section for longer to allow time for improvements. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress?Blue Jay (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors interested in improving this article are working on Tropical cyclone's FAR. Once that FAR is finished I hope editors will begin improving this FAR. I endorse keeping this on hold until Tropical cyclone's FAR is complete. As with all FARs I nominate, please ping me when the improvements are done so I can conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: should we move this one to FARC too? No edits since nomination, and I think that this article may also benefit from a new GAN and FAC instead of trying to fix it extensively via FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene: I agree as I hope that the new weather project once its established will be able to improve this article and bring it up to scratch.Jason Rees (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2021 (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) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [10].

Doctor Who missing episodes

edit
Notified: Hammersfan, Some Dude from North Carolina, Angmering, Kelvin 101, WP Doctor Who, WP Television, WP England, WP BBC, DrKay in August 2019 and me in March

Review section

edit

This FA, which hasn't been reviewed since 2007, has a litany of issues - uncited text, questionable web sources, and an accumulation of crufty tables. DrKay raised concerns on the talk page way back in 2019, but they remain largely unaddressed. Did not notify top editor, as they are an IP who has not edited this article since 2015, so I think the chances of a notification reaching the right person are slim. Hog Farm Talk 01:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (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) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [11].

Tropical cyclone

edit
Notified: Titoxd, Thegreatdr, Jason Rees, Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, WikiProject Tropical cyclone, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Meteorology, diff 03-09-2020

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains a few uncited paragraphs, and the long-term trends section is outdated and poorly structured. Additional minor comments on talk. Some issues have been tackled since the talk page notice, but further progress is needed.

This should be a saver, considering how many TC enthusiasts we have. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling with this one is that while it probably is a saver, its probably better to get some thoughts from the FAC community on the article as a whole.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthiest unsourced passage appears to be the "Derivation" sub-sub-section, which has a textbook-like feel and might originally have been based on a single source. That's probably not too hard to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically speaking, the entire section about Maximum Potential Intensity was copied onto the article as a merge from Maximum potential intensity, and I'm not sure the tropical cyclone article needs that much detail about MPI. I'm tempted to split it back out. Titoxd(?!?) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that. Britannica's article (which seems quite decent) doesn't even seem to mention it.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a discussion is taking place on my talk page about the restructuring of the long-term trend section Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The uncited MPI derivation has been split back now. Could any of the experts look at the remaining info? Is that appropriate? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to look through the more technical bits and I'm not 100% happy with it, I'm trying to go through it as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees and @Titoxd: could we have an update? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that with respect to @Titoxd and ThegreatDR: this articles needs a bit of weeding to make it more accessible. I am trying to do this as time allows and have a rough plan in the back of my head which I will write up on the talk page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the plan is there, and I'm updating the impacts of climate variability part as a whole now. Not yet familiar with this, so currently printing some review chapters / papers. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Femkemilene you may find some of the sources on paleotempestology useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, it's difficult to get a good short narrative out of that and the review papers. I'll see whether I can find some books about the tropical cyclones in general to figure out how much attention is really due.. Paleotempoestology seems to be a collection of puzzle pieces that need to be assembled still. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To say nothing of biased. Like, one would think that tropical cyclones only exist in Belize, the eastern USA, China and Australia if one went by the paleotempestology research papers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the Climatology section I started to write the other day. It might be better/easier to expand that with a few bits of information and indirectly talk about paleotempestology in it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking indirectly about paleotempestology is a good idea. This 2010 book talks about it only in its chapter on climate change; and dedicates only 1/9th of that chapter to it. If I can find a more modern book about it with an equal small part dedicated to paleotempestology, I'm very happy to see it integrated into another section instead of being a stand-alone subsection. I could weave it into the subsection on climatic variability in a similar fashion as that book.
    About climatology; I wonder if we could rename it into 'seasons', to make clear the distinction between that section and a) observations and b) climatic variations. Some of that first paragraph is more logically placed under observations. I further think that our section observations should be moved upwards, before climatology. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This 2016 book also talks about paleotempestology only in the context of current climate change. This seems to be the most logical place to put it. A shame the IPCC report has been postponed until August.. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jason Rees: can we have an update? It seems that quite a bit of work is still needed. Do we need to try and involve others? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femkemilene: I have been a bit busy in real life over the last few weeks and havent been able to edit much. Yeah a lot of work is still needed and help from others would be appreciated.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have patched up the citation needed tags outside of the §Climatology section. For the most part the preexisting uncited information was factually correct but I've added some additional clarifications/details where needed. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Great to have you on board. Of my initial comments, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 have not yet been addressed. Would you be able to help there as well? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I addressed most of these comments, though point 9 (concerning the comprehensiveness of the Forecasting section) and point 13 (concerning the coverage of the Popular culture section) will require deeper research and time... not sure if I can work on those promptly. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going on two months, and this article is a long way from there; not sure why we are not just moving forward to FARC here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees@TheAustinMan@Titoxd@XOR'easter: there are still a few big topics to tackle, and we've not started on the details yet. I'm leaning towards FARC as well, but still hoping that all substantial work is done during this phase, so that it's likely that the article will be saved during FARC. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah has posted a new plan to do some major work. Let's hope the pace ticks up. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceed to FARC There is so much that needs to be fixed in this and I don't think we should be holding up the process for a long time period, even if people like myself are working on it. Given how long this has been open already, it should proceed to FARC and be delisted. It is my thought that this should be delisted and then renominated at a later date once it is fixed. NoahTalk 23:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Outstanding issues from the review section mostly concern coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (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) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [12].

Anna Laetitia Barbauld

edit
Notified: Carbon Caryatid, Bmcln1, Iridescent, WP England, WP Bio, WP Children's literature, WP Poetry, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, 2021-02-28

Review section

edit

This is a 2007 FAR whose main editor is deceased. When noticed for a FAR at the end of February, the article had uncited text and original research.[13] I asked other editors if they had the sources to begin repair, but found no one able to take on the task. Subsequently, other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected. [14] A new editor fixed some of them, but the article still has uncited text, original research, and now missing page numbers. Salvaging this requires access to a number of sources to sort out original research from citable text, and get the page numbers correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This statement in the third para of the lead is lacking context: “Barbauld's reputation was further damaged when many of the Romantic poets ... “ The lead could benefit from expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, improved, but still has uncited text, original research, and the lead has not been corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC There were improvements to the lede, but no progress towards citation needed and original research concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Victoriaearle: I see you've been working on this; do you feel the issues raised are things you would be able to address? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria, it's a bit early to tell. Because the Hemingway articles need tending right now, (thanks for your help in that regard!), I've been around more than I'd like and I started idly picking at it. One important issue has been resolved in the body (not the lead yet), but I'm not sure how invested I am, whether it's possible to resolve the other issues w/out access to the literature, or how much citation/accessiblity, etc. work needs to be done. To be honest I'm on the fence as to whether it should just be delisted, or to put in the work for a decent salvage job. Is it okay if I report back in a few days after assessing a bit more? Victoria (tk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever happens, thanks for trying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone add citation tags to the uncited text? I can only see one at the moment. Also, where can I find what caused "other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected"? SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin I believe that Victoria has addressed most of the cn and or tags; I don’t believe any more tagging is needed. Victoria deleted the mention of Wikipedia from the article, but you can see it still on the talk page in the Press mentions box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only see one page of the source, where it seems to say that the WP article reflects what was generally believed at some point. I can't see the next page. This is the version that was promoted. Does it deal with that issue poorly? SarahSV (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    after edit conflict: Hi Sarah I removed and will explain on the talk page why. But I just got in and am very tired so will try to do so tomorrow. Short version is that prior to 2008 it was believed Barbauld stopped publishing at age 68 after receiving really vile reviews for her poem "Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" based on a biography written by her niece (I believe I have the family connection correct). Barbauld did in fact continue to write poetry but not publish, based on recent research published since 2008. In my view the article as written at the time fully reflected the literature available. I've rewritten the section that accused Wikipedia of perpetuating the myth that the poem's reviews ended her career, because 1. I couldn't access the sources and found another (and in my view better one), and 2., because the section needed rewriting. I do intend to move it to the poems article, but not immediately. At first I trimmed that section in this edit, and and again, and then commented out.
    Then rewrote here,here,here, and here. There is still some work to be done, and this is now far from the short version :). Furthermore, I've not found any original research, but that's for a separate post. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Victoria, take your time, there's no time pressure at all. This was an odd FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. There were three supports over two days. It was promoted by a bot six days later. How can that have happened? SarahSV (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't know, maybe Sandy can explain. Basically the issue at hand didn't exist in the literature in 2006 and Awadewit had a statement (I believe in the lead but no longer there; I'm still searching for it) that Barbauld's career ended in 1812. Newer researchers have proved that to be wrong and have said the lie/myth extended even to Wikipedia. It's impossible to guess, but if Awadewit hadn't died there's a chance she might have updated. She did update extensively with a book published in 2008. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a standard promotion for 2007 procedures. Back then, the bot did not indicate who archived or promoted, but also back then, it was always Raul. Raul promoted [15] and Gimmebot did the bookkeeping only.
    Separately, the OR problem seems to be that Awadewit tacked on concluding summaries that contained content that may or may not be found in sources— that is the dilemma on this and the rest of her articles. I’m particularly wondering how we will deal with similar in other Awadewit articles, and digging for the sources is a lot of work; once Victoria has finished up here, will be interested to her her opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been able to cite all the OR tags I've looked at and there haven't been discrepancies between the concluding summaries and the sources. I'm thinking that if Sarah or you think I've gone about this incorrectly, then please go ahead and revert back any or all edits. I've plenty on my plate with the Hemingway suite currently, and hadn't really even meant to be editing, so am happy to bow out let it be delisted. Victoria (tk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a literature type, but I think you’re doing fine :). There are still three tags in the article, and then the lead needs to be addressed. If we can salvage this one, great; if not, you have improved the article ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea that articles were promoted in 2007 after two days' worth of comments. Or perhaps I did and I've forgotten. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was six days I think; it was nominated on the 16th, and promoted on the 22nd [16] Yep, that was pretty standard back then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Three comments over two days: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. Promoted without further comment four days later. SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria, apologies for the delay. To answer your question, I won't be able to address the issues raised. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Victoriaearle and SarahSV, the three statements that are tagged do not appear critical and I don’t believe the article suffers if we simply delete them. If we were to do that, and if you were to reconstruct a lead, Victoria, would this be satisfactory to Keep? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria, apologies for my slow pace. I wanted a few days to assess last week because it became clear to me that there's more to do than it seemed at first. Re the tags, I've seen the statement re "unjust war" mentioned in the sources I've been able to view, but can't promise I can find it again. The others we can get rid of it.
    But the problem is deeper. These two recent edits require citation clean up, more rewriting and reestablishing the lead which was rewritten, link, link. As an aside, without having read the recent book that's cited, it's impossible to tell how important it is to mention it in the lead. Some of the material is redundant to what I cleaned up last week and should probably go the sub article.
    Beyond all that, there's quite a bit of nitpicky and time-consuming work to be done with the citations, i.e. there are now citation templates in the sources section that affect the rendering and citevar (specifically in the "Other" section). I had to look through the history to find out what had happened and last night found edits like this, which is unhelpful in terms of citevar. It would also be a good idea to replace the blue boxes for accessibility reasons, i.e see the boxes I've used in Big Two-Hearted River#Plot.
    All this after only spending a small amount of time picking at the article. I think it'll take some work to get it right and I'm very slow these days. That's why I posted that I can't get it done. The FAC Sarah mentioned is interesting and might contribute in terms of the article not being polished 15 years ago, but isn't really that relevant to issues that have arisen because the article hasn't been tended. Victoria (tk) 20:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.s - forgot to mention, that to get the article to where it should be, it's necessary to have access to the sources and the new research needs to be read and evaluated. Those books are only available via ILL. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P.p.s. - sorry, to keep adding, but also with limited time here it's best to use it to repair articles I've worked on and/or have sources for, i.e Imagism. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Victoriaearle, I've found a PDF of this, would that be any help? (I can email it, if so) Aza24 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Aza24 (and to everyone else), last night I was thinking that I've spent more time explaining what needs to be done than it would take to get it done and I should just dive into the article and get it done. The problem your link raises is one I've not mentioned. There are new sources about this previously extremely obscure children's book writer and really we need a thorough literature search. I'd not seen that book, published in 2012 w/ only 30 pages viewable (if they're read all in one session - in other words, lots of reading), but there are a number of post-2010 sources I noted during a quick and nasty Project MUSE search (again, lots of downloading & reading time required). The other issue is that I'm sorta trying to be polite and not give away too much info, but getting this done is just really difficult for me for real life reasons. All that said, thanks for the link - I'll bookmark it. And I'll see if I can get some work done there this afternoon to reduce the list of issues. Victoria (tk) 16:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, do you mind if we move the comments to talk? Victoria (tk) 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Editors working to address concerns recommended FARC, which doesn't give me confidence that this article is FA-status. Victoria mentioned above that there are numerous post-2010 sources that need to be consulted, and I don't know if FAR is the best place to complete this process. No significant edits since it moved to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (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) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [17].

Order of St Patrick

edit
Notified: Lord Emsworth, Dr pda, Yomangani, Judgesurreal777, WikiProject England, WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, WikiProject Numismatics, WikiProject Ireland, 2021-03-31

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, there are too many images that need to be trimmed and the references contain unformatted links (ref 16) and original research (ref 5). Note: there was an FAR conducted in 2006 under a previous name, which can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Order of St. Patrick/archive1. Z1720 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the images. If someone can access https://www.jstor.org/stable/30100982?seq=1 through Jstor, this one could be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: You can read 100 articles on JSTOR for free every month if you create an account. I highly recommend it. Chances are this is not the last time you'll need to read one for Wikipedia.
  • I formatted ref 16.
  • I replaced Flags of the World with the source from JSTOR.
  • The same source might also work for ref 5, but I don't know enough about the topic to be sure. The source says the Duke of Leinster was a founding knight and, given the time span, it must have been the 2nd Duke. The source also says that the saltire in the Union Jack is probably not a genuine symbol of Ireland but "the armorial device of the Fitzgeralds – arbitrary elevated via the Knights of St. Patrick – to the position of a national banner." The surname of the Dukes of Leinster was FitzGerald. The source notes (p. 6) that Gerald Fitzgerald probably used these arms as a flag. Given the time span this would have been Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare (see also the said arms in that article), so that seems to check out. Does this work for you? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to the JSTOR article linked above. However, there were concerns posted on the article's talk page that we need Galloway's book to bring this back to FA standards. I can't access the book through my local library system because of COVID restrictions. Does anyone have access to this book? Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is HUGE work to be done here, that access to a single book/journal will not resolve.

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) 1:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [18].

Seabird

edit
Notified: Sabine's Sunbird, WikiProject Birds, 30 Jan

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article, promoted in 2006, for review because it has some issues with verifiability (more than 20 cn tags) as well as lacking info on global warming impacts, as pointed out by Z1720 and Femke Nijsse on the talk page 2 weeks ago. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm hoping my local university still has it. I would need to browse it a bit to find all the generic statements that I was a touch sloppy in citing back in 2006, so I can't ask for specific pages without the index/table of contents. But anyway I've started adding missing citations. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a small paragraph on climate change, and slightly expanded the lede. Still hoping for Sabine's Seabird to come back. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can also help with adding citations. ApproximateLand (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, what is the specific ref style being used? I've looked at WP:Citing sources. ApproximateLand (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The style of the references is quite straightforward: it includes everything in inline notes. Just make sure to include page numbers if you use longer documents (books or reports). FemkeMilene (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I looked at the style and I see what to do. I asked about it because I've seen that one of the concerns about citations for featured articles is to make sure the citation style is consistent. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap I have some stuff to add too. (knew I'd forgotten something...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Pomatostomus, a new user, has addressed almost half of the citation needed tags by adding high-quality sources. Pinging them here, in case they weren't aware they're helping save the star. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added three refs.[19]. I'm going to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for the page number for this one.[20] I couldn't find anything on "especially during the breeding season when hungry chicks need regular feeding." I looked for more recent refs for the older two citations I used, but I didn't find any, or, if I did, they were about one area, one type of gull, or very old. For "opportunistic feeders", I saw some that would say "like most gulls." I think the page should should say most gulls are opportunistic feeders, but the ref I used says "many." Finding a ref that talked about gulls having bills for opportunistic feeding was tough. I stuck to "are opportunistic feeders." ApproximateLand (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw this ref,[21] (Marine Biology: An Ecological Approach) but it plagiarizes this page word for word. Here's its publisher page.[22]ApproximateLand (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some classificatory material. Musing on any more needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question about page number resolved.[23]. ApproximateLand (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At present,[24] only three pieces are left tagged as needing refs. Last time I was on, I looked for refs for "Seabird colonies occur exclusively for the purpose of breeding; non-breeding birds will only collect together outside the breeding season in areas where prey species are densely aggregated." and "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round.", but came up empty. Since website refs are being used,[25][26][27][28] maybe I should give websites a try. Are we sourcing the seabird families section too? ApproximateLand (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ApproximateLand: At page 43 in this book, the quote "Other species, such as some of the storm petrels, diving petrels and cormorants, never disperse at all, staying near their breeding colonies year round." exists and someone has copied it to the article. I could rewrite the sentence and add the reference, what do you think? Wretchskull (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: wait, I'm confused. Did the book copy from Wikipedia or vice versa? Because the book states exactly what the article has. Wretchskull (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the book, I am suspicious it copied from wikipedia really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wretchskull, I think, in all likelihood, the book plagiarized the page. Swaths are copied word for word. We can look in the page history and see when what's on the page was added vs. when the book published its information. Books are always plagiarizing Wikipedia. See my section "Springer Nature copying Wikipedia".[29] ApproximateLand (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom block, [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and look in the next few days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (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, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [31].

Gettysburg Address

edit
Notified: Kaisershatner, Donaldecoho, Tedickey, BartBenjamin, North Shoreman, WP American politics, WP Pennsylvania, WP US Presidents, talk page notification 2020-11-29

Review section

edit

This 2005 promotion was last reviewed in 2008. It has uncited text, poor sources, dead links and incomplete citations. It has good bones, and a tune-up might see it through FAR if someone takes an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goodness. I can try to take on some of this, but I'm not the greatest and writing about literature. I also have some weighting concerns - why is the section speculating about platform research as long as the legacy section? I also have some concerns about OR in the platform location section, why I have tagged. That section will likely need nuked and rewritten in a shorter form. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Layout needs a lot of work as well. I cut a couple off-topic block quotes, and that just makes things look even worse. Hog Farm Talk 01:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - I took a crack at some of the issues, but I don't have access to a couple key print sources, and I've got a lot going on, so I don't think I'm going to be able to fix this. I could help if some other engagement came about, but this seems to be going nowhere. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tried to find a source about the Everett Copy of the Gettysburg Address, which says Lincoln sent to Everett to his request, but alas, I couldn't find one. Many of the websites either copied the text from Wikipedia or aren't reliable.Blue Jay (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC The References and Bibliography sections will require a lot of work, and there are lots of Harv warnings. Some references need to be shortened and moved to the Bibliography, while uncited sources in the bibliography need to be analysed and referenced in the article. I also see lots of citation needed and original research tags. This will require lots of work from editors, and I don't know if FARC/FAR is the best place to fix these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and weighting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2021 (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) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [32].

British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War

edit
Notified: Gaius Cornelius, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject United Kingdom, 2021-02-27

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and sentences, the lede doesn't summarize the article, the format of references is inconsistent and short paragraphs needs to be merged with other sections. Z1720 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that there is significant ongoing work to improve the citations. I'm hoping this one can be saved, given a bit of time - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Dumelow is also engaged in War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR, can we put this on hold until Fifth Coalition is complete? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: G'day, I am trying to help out as best I can, but unfortunately I am limited to online sources as I am away from home. One of the hamstringing aspects of this is that often I can only get a snippet view of some Google Books entries. I have found this: London's Armed Police: 1829 to the Present - Page 105[33]. It might reference the paragraph ending "Thames division had the smallest rifle allocation with 61, and "S" Division the largest with 190. Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade, and Port of London Authority Police", but I can't tell how much of the paragraph it references because I can only see the snippet. Also, I am a bit concerned that our article might paraphrase the source a bit too closely. Can anyone see more than a snippet to check? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AustralianRupert, I suspect I can only see the same snippet as you: "Thames Division had the smallest allocation - 61 rifles and ' S ' Division the highest with 190 . Fifty rifles were also issued to the London Fire Brigade and 100 to the Port of London Authority Police . As training ammunition was not available a..."? It was added by User:Police,Mad,Jack, who might be able to help, though they seem to only be sporadically active since 2010. I've been thinking about this paragraph and reckon it should probably be trimmed back a lot. It deals only with London: in September 1939 there were 40,000 police officers in other forces including the important southern and eastern coastal regions. What were their preparations? I think a brief summary that the police took over as armed guard at some locations, releasing troops for anti-invasion duties, would suffice. Also, if we can find anything discussing their proposed role in an invasion, our article implies they would join the fight alongside the armed forces - Dumelow (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, yes, that is all I can see -- was hoping that it might have been a geographic limitation on Google Books -- sometimes those in different locations can view more than I can. I think your suggestion to trim this paragraph would be fine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book was reasonably cheap (in the UK anyway!) so I've ordered a copy, I'll take a crack at that section when it arrives, for now I've chucked in some more info on the orders given to police nationally in case of invasion - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book arrived and I've cited and rewritten the police section - Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone want to take a crack at the uncited section on the RAF? I don't have much interest in aerial warfare but it seems pretty non-contentious, and hopefully easy to cite - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My wife sent me some scans from my copies of Hough & Richards' The Battle of Britain and Parker's work of the same name; unfortunately, while they imply some of these points, they don't really explicitly support most points in this paragraph. Sorry, there probably isn't much more I can add here. I'm sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is quite a mess. Who is still working on it? Citations need a lot of work. Also, MOS:DTAB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've hit a bit of a dead end with sourcing and enthusiasm on this one, unfortunately. Unless anyone else has more resources I think this is one we may have to let go - Dumelow (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And needs a proper lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that War of the Fifth Coalition's FAR closed a few days ago. I hope someone steps forward with sources to help rebuild this article, as there has already been some great edits to fix this article. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got some concerns with a few of the web sources used.

  • Is the Second World War Equipment page by David Boyd RS? It's self-published, so what's Boyd's credentials?
  • Is Military History Encyclopedia on the Web RS?
  • The " "Restored Coastal Artillery Searchlight, Weymouth"" source does not seem to be particularly solid
  • The source for approximately a mile upstream from the bridge. Further out to sea, Inchmickery, 1.6 miles (2.6 km) north of Edinburgh, was similarly fortified. The remnants of gun emplacements on the coast to the north, in North Queensferry, and south, in Dalmeny, of Inchmickery also remain is a Bing Maps link. We can do better than identifying gun emplacements through aerial photography for a FA
  • UK Second World War Heritage is a wordpress site, likely unreliable
  • So there are three of the Sealion sources that look doubtful - Brooks' essay (dead link), alternatehistory.com, and globeatwar.com
  • What makes the Herb Freeman source RS?
  • What makes Pillbox Study Group high-quality RS?

I took a look at the WWII sourcing I could access, but none of it is relevant to this topic (mostly USA stuff). With Dumelow thinking this may have hit a dead end, I think I probably agree on that. Momentum seems to have stalled out, and there is quite a bit yet to do. So move to FARC, I guess, unless somebody else steps up. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I also don't have the time to work on this anymore, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (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) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [34].

Military history of Puerto Rico

edit
Notified: Marine 69-71, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Caribbean, diff for talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated on talk, the article has multiple issues:

  • At 17,511 words the article is too long and it needs to be cut almost in half to reach the recommended length, perhaps by using summary style and shifting material to sub-articles.
  • The article cites questionable sources such as http://mayaguezsabeamango.com/images/documentos/capital.pdf .
  • Some sources don't have page numbers, and a consistent citation format is not used.
  • The lead doesn't meet MOS:LEAD.
  • There's considerable unsourced content.

The response to these concerns was to state that there's nothing wrong with the article.[35] Article was last reviewed in 2006; at the time, it was only 7992 words long, so the greater part of the article has never been reviewed at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the page, because its too long, I agree that its too long, many sources don't have page numbers, there's a lot of unsourced content and also there's content that just doesn't need to be there like the list of units at Ramey Air Force Base and tables of medals awarded to the 65th Infantry Regiment in WWII and the Korean War. So clear fails on 1c. and 4 of the FAC Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comments by Nick-D I've long considered this article problematic, and agree that a FAR is in order. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The article is clearly too long, and includes obviously bloated material.
  • Some structural examples of bloat are:
    • The 'Puerto Rican commander in the Philippines' section, which seems to cover only a single Puerto Rican
    • The 'Second Nicaraguan Campaign (1926–33)' section, which has multiple paras on a handful of Puerto Ricans performing routine-looking duties
    • Listing every(?) unit assigned an airfield in World War II (without supporting references as well)
    • The entire 'The USS Cochino incident' section
    • The 'Operation El Dorado Canyon' section (two paras covering one Puerto Rican)
    • The 'Puerto Rican women with the rank of general' section (and why focus only on two generals rather than provide a history of Puerto Rican women in the era since women were integrated into the military?)
    • The 'Congressional Gold Medal' section - this should be a para at most somewhere
  • However, most of the bloat is overly-detailed descriptions of a huge number of topics. Medal citations, one-para bios of large numbers of people (including people who seem barely notable), lists of people who are barely notable, etc, etc. All this stuff needs to be condensed.
  • A lot of material, including entire paras, lacks references.
  • There's an emphasis throughout the article on Puerto Ricans who distinguished themselves, and the general tone leans towards boosterism. For instance, while I presume that Puerto Ricans were subject to systematic racism (and this may still be the case), the topic isn't mentioned - a focus on 'distinguished service' obscures this important point. The fact that people are being highlighted for being promoted or filling prestigious/highly skilled roles for the first time indicates that this is unusual, yet the article never discusses this thematically.
  • I was surprised there was no mention over the dispute concerning the United States Navy in Vieques, Puerto Rico
  • The article's focus is also much too narrow, being limited mainly to the military (and especially wartime) service of Puerto Ricans. Topics such as anti-war movements (which I presume may have had a distinctive edge given the island's colonial history and current status) and military production aren't covered at all. There also isn't much on the military history of the island outside of wartime.
  • The article is too long and, to be frank, too exhausting to read due to the bloat, for me to provide a detailed review of its text. The following comments are based on a light skim:
    • It's not clear to me why the pre-colonisation military history of the island is presented in the context of colonisation. The statement that "The Tainos were known as a peaceful people, however they were also warriors and often fought against the Caribs" is poorly written, and risks repeating a 'noble savage' myth
    • What's the relevance of the para starting with 'According to the "500th Florida Discovery Council Round Table"'?
    • " In November 1917, the first military draft (conscription) lottery in Puerto Rico was held in the island's capital, San Juan. The first draft number was picked by Diana Yaeger, the daughter of the U.S. appointed governor of Puerto Rico Arthur Yager. The number she picked was 1435 and it belonged to San Juan native Eustaquio Correa. Thus, Correa became the first Puerto Rican to be "drafted" into the Armed Forces of the United States." - delete everything after the first sentence.
    • "However, with the defeat of Germany in 1945, the United States concentrated all of their efforts to the war in the Pacific. " - the USN was focused on the Pacific for most of the war
    • The 'Cuban Missile Crisis' section notes only the role played by a single Puerto Rican. Surely the bases on the island were used in this action?
    • "Two Puerto Ricans who served in Vietnam held positions in the Administration of President George W. Bush...." - relevance?
    • "He was ambushed in Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, by Somali warlords" - sloppy writing: presumably the 'warlords' didn't personally ambush him. Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I had a go at fixing some of the issues, but probably can't rectify the major concerns listed above. I will try to help a bit more over the next week or so if I get a chance, but would need someone else to do the heavy lifting, sorry. These are my edits so far: [36] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose size = > 17,000 words (8,000 words when last reviewed). I don't support FACs that exceed 10,000.
  • The areas for cutting excess detail are easily found, sample Puerto Ricans in sensitive positions, undue and if people have their own articles anyway ...
  • WP:CITATIONOVERKILL, why all these citations for an uncontroversial fact? On June 10, 2014, President Barack Obama, signed the legislation known as "The Borinqueneers CGM Bill" at an official ceremony. The Bill honors the 65th Infantry Regiment with the Congressional Gold Medal.[3][197][198][199]
  • There is uncited text.
  • Another section that presents obvious opportunities to trim excess detail is Post World War II; any where one looks, it is easy to see that this article can be cut to half the current size. One route might be a notable Puerto Ricans in the military section, cutting everything down to just the basics, since they have their own articles if they are notable.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I agree with the nominator and other commenters here that this article has major issues and is not up to current FA standards. It is actually really hard to read and its coverage of the topic is very uneven. As an example, I don't understand why, in the Korean War section, there is so much focus on the 65th Regiment, when the preamble to the section mentions 61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the war. Presumably they didn't all serve in the 65th regiment. The heading for the section containing the awards the regiment earned during the war is misplaced. The amount of awards earned in WWII seem trivial and hardly worth mentioning given the scope of the article. I am not hopeful that the remedial work will be completed as the primary editor best placed to do this seems to think nothing is wrong with the article. As an aside, I am also concerned that the primary editor is mentioned in the article in the Vietnam War section and a picture of himself illustrates the section. That seems to be a COI if the primary editor added them. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have deleted the Vietnam War COI sentence and images. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TJMSmith: I am a bit confused on the scope of the article. I think it obfuscates the military history of Puerto Rico (the island) and the history of Puerto Rican military people. For example, this article mentions Maritza Sáenz Ryan, Marc H. Sasseville and Hilda Clayton who were all born in the states and did not serve their career in PR. Are they relevant to this article? Additionally, Hector E. Pagan, Irene M. Zoppi, Noel Zamot, María Inés Ortiz have served the majority of their careers off the island on missions not tied to PR. Heather Penney is mentioned but is not Puerto Rican. TJMSmith (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AustralianRupert: G'day, I have done what I can to add some more citations to areas that were missing them, but I am probably at the limit of what I can do. There are a few issues in the Korean War section that I think need clarification as a couple of points don't quite seem to make sense (I have marked these with clarification tags) -- can anyone assist with rectifying these? I have also tried to reduce image sandwiching and in the process have reorganised the article a little, including merging a couple of sections: [37]. Potentially this merge wasn't the best idea on my part -- I would appreciate others taking a look and if need be, I am happy for it to be reverted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the Korean War section is a mess. I've been doing too much citation clarification on this and related articles to really dive into it (plus Korea isn't my area of focus), but it feels very boosterish to me. Intothatdarkness 01:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, given that no one seemed to step forward to rectify my clarification tags, I had a go myself. These are my changes: [38]. If anyone with more knowledge feels keen to adjust, please do. I'd be happy to keep trying to help save this one, but I really need some assistance from someone with access to a broader range of sources (potentially someone in PR or the wider US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may be able to help, but one thing to be aware of is the need to check almost every cite (when possible) to make sure what's being quoted is actually IN the listed source. I've run into this problem with many of these articles (including individuals linked out of this article...which is where the issue seems especially frequent), and wanted to make sure people were aware. In some cases it's been misquoting, but in others what's attributed isn't even in the source. Intothatdarkness 13:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC) This may be of help with the Korea section: https://history.army.mil/html/books/korea/65Inf_Korea/65Inf_KW.pdf. Intothatdarkness 17:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Intothatdarkness: I took a whack at some of the stuff in Vietnam and WW2. Having done cleanup in some of the other linked articles I've found misquoting or misparaphrasing sources to be issues worth checking, and corrected some examples in the sections I worked on. Not much, but it's a start. Intothatdarkness 16:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, understood - I will try to help out here if possible, but I don't really have the time or knowledge to check all 190 refs and replace if needed, I'm sorry. If possible, I would like to see some of these sorts of refs replaced: [39]. What are the credentials of this site? (There are a few other sources like this used in the article, which potentially also need to be replaced, I'm sorry to say as they probably wouldn't meet the current FAC requirements). I wonder if the information could instead be sourced to the source provided above: [40]? That would seem to be a better source, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the quick comparison I made, I believe almost all the Korea sources could be replaced by the book I linked, AustralianRupert. I can take a stab at some of them, and already corrected a couple. I can prioritize replacing the web page with the book. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I had a go at one of the paragraphs: [41]. I wasn't really sure what ref style to use, though, sorry as the article uses a mixture. Sorry if I mucked this up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good...better than it was. As for the items you couldn't find...one thing I have noticed with this and related articles is items being cited that don't actually exist in the cited source. Given the depth of the book, I'd consider it more authoritative than the website, keeping in mind that the website may never have mentioned those locations in the first place (this being a recent example). Intothatdarkness 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization and length. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2021 (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) 3:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC) [42].

Battlefield Earth (film)

edit
Notified: Prioryman, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Science Fiction, 2021-03-17

Review section

edit

While you were still learning how to SPELL YOUR NAME, I was being trained.... to review featured articles!

— Terl from Battlefield Earth

Another FA promotion from more than 10 years ago, a time of lower standards for the FA criteria. The article, mainly, is way too incomplete to meet the criteria; its production section has little-to-none about the actual production, just the Scientology relations in its development, when the making of its special effects, design, filming, scoring and so on has garnered features in science fiction magazines, special features in home media releases, and several retrospective sources in Newsweek, Vice, The Independent, and more not cited here (the DVD commentary is only cited one). Additionally, the film has not kept up with retrospective opinion and analysis, the reception section is a quotefarm with little attempt at opinion consolidation, and citations are incomplete in at least one field or another, with its two prominent book sources cited with too broad page ranges and no specific page numbers. Also, we have a random Youtuber's account as a source for Ref 66. The article needs significant improvement to deserve its golden star. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

👨x🐱 (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll go through them sometime. I might also be able to think of more not listed here. Unsure whether these will all be usable at the FA level (I'm just dipping a toe into it, and FAC source reviews look terrifying), but will see what's good. Vaticidalprophet 21:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chuckled at this line out of the Independent: Battlefield Earth is currently unavailable to stream anywhere in the UK. Aside from that amusingly reversed boilerplate, the Independent retrospective looks just a rehash of the Vice one. The Vice one is excellent, but I've seen Vice be criticised at the FA level -- thoughts? Vaticidalprophet 07:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see zero reason for Vice to be questioned 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I've seen FAC source reviewers dislike it. Hopefully @Nikkimaria and @Ealdgyth won't be offended by a ping -- is this something that you-as-source-reviewers would accept in getting a FAR back to standard? Vaticidalprophet 03:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is listed as no-consensus at WP:RSP, there would need to be a rationale as to how it would meet the higher bar of high-quality for FA. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2021 (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) 7:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [43].

Sviatoslav I

edit
Notified: Briangotts, Ghirlandajo, Beit Or, WP Biography, WP Military history, WP Russia, WP Ukraine, WP Belarus, WP Bulgaria, WP Romania, WP Middle Ages, WP Norse history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece, 2021-02-25

Review section

edit

This 2006 promotion really goes to show how much FAC standards have changed. In November 2006, the FAC had a whopping 16 supports. Now, it's not even that close to the criteria. There's large swaths of uncited text, some of what appear to be the references are really just uncited notes, and unclear citations such as "Primary Chronicle _____." Additionally, since the FA promotion, the layout of the article has declined. There are now multiple collapsed navboxes hidden in section, and at least on my system, MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a complete mess, inconsistent reference style, heavily relying on primary sources, uncited notes. Seeing that the Russian WP article is GA with multiple uncited sections I don't see how this article can be restored to FA standards in the foreseeable future. I am going to go with delist on this one.--Catlemur (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (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) 7:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC) [44].

FairTax

edit
Notified: Morphh, WikiProject Business, WikiProject Economics, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, diff for talk page notification

Review section

edit
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated by Hog Farm on the talk page,

This article does not currently meet the current featured article criteria. There is an outstanding maintenance tag, bits of uncited text, and heavy use of advocacy sources instead of scholarly sources. I have concerns about the sheer amount of sourcing here to advocacy groups, political action groups, and sources that clearly take sides on this debate, such as "Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics" and sources with titles like " "The U.S. Corporate Income Tax System: Once a World Leader, Now A Millstone Around the Neck of American Business". I have serious concerns about the quality of this article.

There has also been a POV tag on the article for a year, which is a bad look when paired with a star. (t · c) buidhe 16:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see Devonian Wombat has removed the "Millstone" source, which is an improvement, but only scratches the surface. As an additional comment, Bartlett holds the fringey viewpoint that FairTax is a Scientologist plot, so it seems like the usage of Bartlett should be trimmed/avoided for this subject. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - One dodgy source removed, but no progress since and the sourcing is not up to what is generally expected for FAs. Hog Farm Talk 01:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no progress has been made to address the POV tag at the top of the page. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2021 (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/May_2021&oldid=1025674727"