Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2023

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [1].

Glynn Lunney

edit
Notified: MLilburne, Wikiproject Science and academia Wikiproject Moon WikiProject Spaceflight, noticed 2022-07-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because the lead is too short and omits discussion of sections in the body, and because WP:Primary references are in use. Desertarun (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The center was a part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), a United States federal agency founded to promote aeronautical research. Cooperative students at NACA took part in a program that combined work and study, providing a way for them to fund their college degrees while gaining experience in aeronautics." - not in source
    Added additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was during these years that Lunney became the protege of flight director Chris Kraft, a relationship that would last some twenty years" - I don't think we can say the relationship lasted 20 years using that particular sources, as it is from 1968 which is early in the 20-year period
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " this was his first experience with uncrewed spacecraft" - I thought he'd worked with the uncrewed Gemini 2?
    I noticed this one when I added the bit about Gemini 2. It needs re-wording somehow. The idea was that Gemini was a crewed spacecraft even though Gemini 2 was an uncrewed mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "satellites". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content looks generally fine, this is more of a first pass than anything else. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [2].

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)

edit
Notified: Sceptre, WikiProject Doctor Who, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, 2023-01-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was considering nominating this article for TFA in April, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the episode's airing, but I do not think it's ready for the main page nor do I have the background knowledge to fix it. One concern is sourcing: most reviews of the episode are from its airing in 2008 and do not include retrospective perspectives and information on its reception relative to other Doctor Who episodes. Other concerns include a "Donna's mime" section which I think should be removed (it was added after the article's FAC) and the "Critical reception" section falls into the X says Y trap. I'm hoping this FAR will inspire editors to fix up this article before a TFA run. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a quick look and fixed a few blatent errors. I think the lede needs a bit tightening up and the reception also needs the modern cites that have been found, and also a bit of a c/e to make it flow like a traditional reception section. Otherwise seems pretty decent. Don't think it's a long way off. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paging User:Sceptre, whose original FA candidate this was back in 2008. SN54129 17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC I agree with Lee above that the article is not far from a save. However, I am still concerned about the reception section's formatting and the lack of retrospection about the episode's placement in the wider programme (in terms of plot, comparison in "best episodes of the programme" and other information.) Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the sources that have not been included? They are alluded to above but I'm not finding them. A section added post-FAC can be removed if it's not up to snuff or necessary for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: sources. I posted two examples on the talk page that can be used in the article. However, I think there are more because this is such an iconic show that there has been many "Best of" episode listings that are not included in the article. Although I could Google to find these, I am not enough of a television expert to know which sites are the best sources for this. I did do an academic literature search on WP:LIBRARY but did not find any useful sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this needs to go to FARC. There's two more recent sources listed on talk, but I don't think this is a situation where the sourcing has changed much. The "Doctor who microsite" appears to be run by BBC, so that source is okay, and I'd say Metro is okay enough for reviews. This should be a very easy fix. @Lee Vilenski: - are you willing/able to add the two sources noted on talk? I can do it myself, but my experience with Dr. Who is watching a single episode about evil gargoyles 8 or 9 years ago and thinking it made no sense, so I'd rather not be the one to try to parse this stuff out. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the sake of finally getting this resolved, I've incorporated material from one of the two sources listed on the article talk page. @Z1720 and Lee Vilenski: - if this is good enough handling of the material, I'll try to work in the other one after my work trip this week. I'm unconvinced that adding rankings from "Best of" listicles (as alluded to above) is necessarily best practice, and I honestly think this one is very close to the standard. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy enough. Probably needs a bit of general cleanup, but that's true of all FAs. I don't have an issue with this being closed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to get to this, but frankly have not had the desire to tackle this. If others are happy with this, I'm find to close as keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Tor source as well, although I found it not very useful. I think we're at close without FARC here; the two more recent sources have been added, and the unsourced section has been axed. Hog Farm Talk 02:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 18 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [3].

Lung cancer

edit

Notified these, 2021 and June 2022 on talk page
Important article, not kept updated sufficiently, long list of concerns on the talk page not yet resolved. No medical articles at FAR currently so I'm nominating this. (t · c) buidhe 06:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try updating some of the older references in the next couple of months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slow but steady progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: further discussion at Sandy's talk (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of relevance, here (else will be lost in archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, slow going but steady improvement heading in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look this week - it's nice to see medical content saved at FAR, since there's a dearth of medical FAs. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the FA-med team has weighed in (meaning Colin, Graham Beards and Spicy), and the article is decidedly ready for some layfolk to read through; the end is near! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it through the symptoms and diagnosis sections without seeing any major issues; will try to chip away at this during the rest of the week. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (from the prognosis section) "Tumor mutations in KRAS are associated with reduced survival" - unclear to the layman was KRAS is, recommend linking or glossing
  • "Despite high levels of gross research funding, lung cancer ranks in the bottom third of cancer types by NCI research funding per death, per diagnosis, and per potential years of life lost" - source is from 2012. Is this still particularly accurate?

That's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 20:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and comments Hog Farm. Linked KRAS. For the funding issue, I can't find a more recent secondary source that covers the topic. If I rip the numbers off the National Institute of Health's funding by disease area page and divide the funding column by the death column it appears to still be true. I've rewritten the sentence to be sourced relatively cleanly from the table (though a division is left to the reader to verify). Do folks think that's ok? I don't think I've sourced something that requires a calculation at home before. Ajpolino (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fine per WP:CALC. IMO this one is good to close w/o FARC. Hog Farm Talk 19:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild you had hopes a few years back of scheduling this for TFA, but I thought it not in shape then; maybe you want to have a look at the revamping by Ajpolino (close to finishing up) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to work on article talk for archival purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 6 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) 3:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [4].

Scouting

edit
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2022-11-19

Review section

edit

This 2097 2007 FA has not been maintained to FA status. In addition to the mention on talk of the need to reflect recent and high-quality sources, there is

  • listiness throughout including in the lead
  • uncited text
  • haphazard image layout including MOS:SANDWICHing
  • WP:MEDRS breaches[5]
  • External link farm including inappropriate links
  • Dated text (sample: WAGGGS had 144 Member Organizations in 2007 )
  • Uncited notes listed as citations: (By a happy co-incidence, these hats were already called "Boss of the Plains" hats—or "B-P hats" for short)
  • Dubious sourcing, a few samples:
    • Forster, Reverend Dr. Michael. "The Origins of the Scouting Movement" (DOC). Netpages. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
    • "The Siege of Mafeking". British Battles.com. Retrieved July 11, 2006.
    • "The Mafeking Cadets". Scouting Milestones. btinternet.co.uk. Archived from the original on June 14, 2011. Retrieved February 4, 2007.

This is only a sampling of issues, incomplete. Extensive work is needed to bring this article to current standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, standards are going to really drop over the next seventy-five years... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Look at the year in the first sentence. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<groan> ... everyone knows I can't type a single sentence without a typo! Thanks for the clues, Z and Airship ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 13 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) 4:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [6].

Bernard Williams

edit
Notified: various, March 2023

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of longstanding concerns about the article's comprehensiveness and sourcing. (see this comment from 2012). The only significant contributor is deceased, but someone else could step up to improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits since FAR began (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per the concerns about comprehensiveness and sourcing listed on the article talk page. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC No significant edits to the article to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 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) 4:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [7].

Regulamentul Organic

edit
Notified: [8], Dec 2022

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of citation issues, specifically unsourced content, page needed, and overcite issues. (t · c) buidhe 16:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist lack of significant improvement since the FAR began (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 7 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) 4:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) [9].

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

edit
Notified: Mass message send targets

Procedural FAR: based on a three-person discussion on talk, this Featured article was merged away without consultation at FAR. The merge needs review by a broader audience, and if it stands, the FA needs to be delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Understandable, I am not incredibly familiar with the process of merging featured articles. I should note that while this says three person discussion like it is a small amount, the article was promoted to Featured by a three-person discussion in 2007. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Zxcvbnm not a problem (happens more often than one might suspect), but just for future reference this needed instead to be done via a procedural FAR that would record the event in article history, remove it from the WP:FA page, yada, yada ... else we get these kinds of messes that become harder to sort as years pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delist. The FAC process implicitly ignores notability and UNDUE considerations. The VG Wikiproject's (and FAC's) standards for sourcing and prose have risen in the past 15 years and the article, though competently written, does not meet those new standards. As the former article notes, "the events passed by with little concern from either the public or gaming journalists in particular". It was written in an age when spin-out articles were popular and little heed was paid to if ballooning them out to full article size actually served any informational purpose for the reader. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the merge was the right choice (though since it was an FA it probably should have been more advertised, or at least cleaned up after the merge so it didn't have to be done now.) The article itself noted that coverage of the story was rather thin, and in the years since it's not become an important enough historical note to merit more than what it has now, which is two paragraphs that cover the same content in a much more due weight form, so a procedural delist is appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural delist per David Fuchs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there was enough discussion to warrant its own article (if it was at AfD, I would have !voted keep) but the low amount of information/prose in the article would have caused me to question its FAC status (and perhaps voted for delist for comprehensiveness). Since the merge has already taken place, I would recommend that this be procedurally delisted. If something changes about the status of the article, I will reevaluate. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because there is no article here anymore. Ping me if it's unmerged so I can re-evaluate it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • obvious delist - how can something that doesn't exist be an FA? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 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) 4:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [10].

But I'm a Cheerleader

edit
Notified: Belovedfreak, WikiProject Film, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-12-05

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sections, the lede is quite short, and various references are missing information (like author name). The "Critical response" section also suffers from frequent "X said Y" formatting. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a decent start-class article that has been written by a fan. If you fixed it up a bit, it would qualify for B class. Come on, The Daily Illini is a student newspaper. The three articles cited for "one of the best LGBT films" are listicles. I'm getting tired of seeing Wikipedia constantly state, in its own voice, that because a listicle (or a few listicles) included something, it's now considered "one of the best". GAs and FAs should cite a film scholar or academic source to say that it's the best. Not listicles. This is very easy to do for films that are actually considered "the best". The listicles could stay in the article, assuming they're going to reliable sources instead of content mills, but they should be moved to the reception, taken out of the lead, and attributed. Like: "The film was ranked as one of the best by X, Y, and Z". Also, the fact that a critical reassessment happened seems to be original research. If a couple sources write retrospective reviews and include it in their listicles, that's fine, but that's not a critical reassessment. A critical reassessment happens when Variety or The New York Times says "the film was reassessed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I found:

  • Lead is way too short.
  • I took the student newspaper and the listicles out of the lead as they were bad sources "confirming" facts not found in the body.
  • Removed sources to Amazon and Geocities.
  • Tagged several [citation needed]s.
  • Soundtrack is missing an infobox.
  • Several sources are missing work/publisher attributes.
  • Is Rainbow Network a RS? It currently redirects to a malware/scam site.
  • Is shoestring.org a RS?
  • The whole "reassessment" section is OR.
  • Over half the sources are interviews or directory listings. Certainly needs more in-depth sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 22 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) 4:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC) [11].

Tulip mania

edit
Notified: Smallbones, Ceoil, JayHenry (last edit was 2011), WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, WikiProject Netherlands, WikiProject Plants, 2020-07-03 2022-11-06

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple instances of statements without citations, short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations. A secondary matter might be searching for academic literature that has been published since the article's original FAC and using them as sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a background section to replace the one that was denied. It doesn't seem like any significant sources were published in the last few years. As far as De Rosa (2021) is concerned Garber (2000) and Goldgar (2007) are still the most comprehensive and important treatises on the subject. He also mentions Thompson (2007) while he conveniently ignores French. I think the article needs to include French (which it does) as a dissenting voice to achieve balance. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that significant academic literature has been published since the article's original FAC, unless the nominator is holding back for some reason. I'm not seening "multiple instances of statements without citations", and " short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations" as very light-weight SOFIX stuff. Geez, an editor that supported an article back in the day could almost feel as being guilt tripped via frivolous clock them up noms. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some cn tags to places where I think citations are needed. Some of the short paragraphs I think need to be reformatted are the paragraphs that begin with "In the Northern Hemisphere, tulips bloom in April and May for about one week." "Tulip mania reached its peak during the winter of 1636–37," and "The popularity of Mackay's tale has continued to this day..." While I do not know if significant literature has been published, I haven't done a search for it because I am not an expert in this field and so some of the sources I find might not be useful for the article. I am happy to do a search of various databases I have access to (WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, NYT, and others through my local library system) if someone is willing to evaluate and add information if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to state for the record that I see nothing dubious about this FAR-nomination. The article has issues, even in the lede. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the paragraph with the cn-tag under "legal changes", beginning with: "Before this parliamentary decree, the purchaser of a tulip contract—known in modern finance as a forward contract—was legally obliged to buy the bulbs." this does not seem to be true. As stated in Dash (1999) and Garber (2000, p. 34) several laws limiting and banning futures trading had been passed in the preceding decades. The legal status of these contracts should have been at best unsettled. Can we strike this section? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Considering the lack of edits by others, I think its ok for you to WP:BEBOLD and make edits yourself. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to it, need to spend some time cross-checking page numbers. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, progress stalled for over a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC citations are inconsistent in formatting; book citations don't use {{cite book}} even when {{sfn}} is otherwise used, and even the latter is inconsistently used in the lead alone. There are also some content issues; all of the modern interpretations of the mania depicted in the article appear to suggest that it was in fact rational, either due to market forces or the legal changes per Thompson. However, the lead says that "It is generally considered to have been the first recorded speculative bubble or asset bubble in history", saying that "Some modern economists have proposed rational explanations" (emphasis added) and only at the end conceding that "Although Mackay's book is a classic, his account is contested. Many modern scholars believe that the mania was not as destructive as he described." From the article alone (I have not looked deeper into sources myself), it would seem to me that the "rational" interpretations are the current modern consensus (with the possible exception of Thompson, who still explains it with legal changes rather than a true mania), to an extent discrediting Mackay. If that is indeed the case, the lead ought to be rewritten accordingly, and if it isn't then more modern interpretations need to be added. Also, the "available price data" seems a bit short and misplaced to me, and there are a few cn tags, but those are not fatal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per concerns highlighted by Wolfson above. I would like the sources listed in Further reading to be incorporated into the article body, but there haven't been major edits since March. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2023&oldid=1157213334"