Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2020

< 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) 4:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC) [1].

Edward VIII

edit
Notified: DrKay, Politics, WT:MILHIST, WT:UK

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues versus the FA criteria, including uncited text and MOS problems (image sandwiching, among others). Furthermore, recent scholarly sources including the latest biography (Powell, Ted (2018). King Edward VIII: An American Life. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-251457-8.) are not cited, meaning the article is under-researched. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The couple of image sandwichesw look fine to me, even at 400px default. Powell's book is not exactly a full biography, but a treatment of what he says is a major theme in the Duke's life - but however much he liked aspects of America, he never lived there, & I don't see the omission as fatal. It should go in a further reading section though. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, reviews indicate that the book is a significant work which advances new ideas about the article subject. Without incorporating new scholarship the article cannot be considered either comprehensive ("it neglects no major facts or details") or well-researched ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same link twice. It sounds as though the author is just winding up to give the book a good kicking when the preview stops. I must say i don't remember seeing British reviews. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I made a mistake with copy pasting links, but there are other reviews, such as an academic one stating "The book offers acompelling and highly readable analysis of Edward’s life and fateful decision, one that offers enlightenment and diversion to all audiences. The Wallis Simpson story is thus no longer the linchpin of a monarch’s unprecedented abdication; instead, it is but one element in a long process of cultural estrangement." (t · c) buidhe 10:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm more worried about the use of primary sources. We should not be relying so heavily on The London Gazette, contemporary newspapers, and even newsreels. Given the depth in which the subject has been covered, there is no justification for this. Equally, a significant amount of the material under "Titles, styles, honours and arms" fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (who cares whether he had a medal from San Marino?) and should be removed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing; need some additional perspectives on the article's status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 164 footnotes including many sources from the 21st century. It is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. DrKay (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm afraid at this time I don't see any compelling arguments that the new source needs to be cited. If the nominator can provide evidence that leaving this source out affects the articles comprehensiveness (ie the new book contains new research) I'd reconsider. Otherwise, there are many topics where you can achieve comprehensiveness by cited selected sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think the absence of Powell's book is remotely fatal. I'd suggest however that the absence of material from Alan Lascelles' diaries is an issue. I appreciate that they are a primary source, but he worked for Edward for a decade, and knew him exceptionally well. Lascelles' insights into Edward's character are exceptionally revealing, and probably unique. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above & others. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The absence of a single book does prevent it from being a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (1c). Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 14:27, 10 October 2020 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC) [2].

Final Fantasy X-2

edit
Notified: Ryu Kaze, Deckiller, Square Enix WikiProject, Video games WikiProject

Review section

edit

There was a call for an FAR back in January and I agree with that. There is information that is not cited in the article as well as this being a very old Featured Article has it not meeting the current criteria. It just needs an overhaul. GamerPro64 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @GamerPro64:@SandyGeorgia: I am a huge fan of this game and have a pretty extensive amount of knowledge about it so I will try my best to help. Aside from the uncited portions, what else requires improvement? I have noticed the citations use an inconsistent date format with some using Y/M/D and others using M/D/Y. I am uncertain about what variation of English would be used for a Japanese game so I am unsure which way to correct that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon doing a brief read-through, I do notice a lot of issues with the prose, and I would reckon that sections like the "Reception" one would benefit from an overhaul. I will try to get to the article this weekend or next week if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response, and apologies for the long message. I have never participated in a FAR before, but I figured I should try to at least help somewhat given my knowledge of the game. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47, if you can do what you can for now, I will re-engage in a few days when I have more time to list anything else I see. User:Deckiller did a lot of work to help other editors at FAR in his day, so if you can help save this star, it would be grand! Do what you can for now, and ping this page when you need more feedback. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GamerPro64: Apologies for my delay in looking at the article. I think the "Reception" section is the major area that should be overhauled. It does not address reviews for the remasters or any retrospective reviews. The structure as a whole could also use more focus, and I think the second paragraph on sales would work better as its own subsection. I'd be curious on your opinion on this section. I have never worked on something this popular so I am uncertain of how to balance length.
  • However, I will work on other issues first. I will get to the final paragraph for the "Versions and merchandise" section and "Music" subsection over the next few days, and check around for uncited material in the overall article. I am holding on the "Reception" section for the moment because frankly it will require the most work and I wanted to get your feedback on this first. Apologies for the ping. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: Thank you for the resource. The reception section should be completely rewritten. I have already said this, but my biggest concern is the gaps (i.e. retrospective reviews and re-release reviews). I have attempted to copy-edit this section, but I am not particularly satisfied with my first pass-through. While the rest of the article is in much better shape, this section alone would take in my opinion a substantial amount of work and time to bring to a FA level. I am sorry to say this, but this is the point where I have to stop. Hopefully, my edits were not harmful (and they can be reverted of course) and apologies again. This is just way too much for me right now. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, organization, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to keep due to the improvements made to the article. Thank you for all of the work Axem Titanium. You have done a great job, and as someone who grew up with and still loves the game, I am very happy to see the article improved so much. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hold this if you can get some steam up @Axem Titanium: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I found some time the other day to get through most of it. I have a little bit left to do before I ping the people here for a second look. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Axem Titanium: take your time and ping when you're done. Better is done thoroughly than quickly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your edits. You have done a great job with the article. I was unaware there was a separate article on the HD Remaster. Apologies for not checking for that before commenting. I have struck my delist vote as my issues with the article have been addressed. Thank you for again for taking the time to do this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2020 (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) 6:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC) [3].

Anton Chekhov

edit
Notified: Qp10qp, WikiProject Russia/Performing arts in Russia task force, WikiProject Theatre

Review section

edit

I was very reluctant to put this article in FAR, since it is very well sourced and written. I originally left some comments on the talk page yesterday and was planning to wait a week before nominating the article for review. However, after going through the archives and past comments on the talk page I see that the concerns I expressed have been brought up for at least 13 years, but still not addressed and that the main contributor, has not edited in WP since 2012. (Although I will notify them of this FAR nonetheless) Please see this comment from 2007 and this comment from 2011.

I will relay my comments from the talk page here that basically this article suffers from minor issues and major ones. Minor ones include inconsistent sourcing and overuse of images – after posting this FAR I'll fix the sourcing. The major ones however are more concerning, in that this article almost solely focuses on biographical information and a legacy section that I would argue is still lacking – especially in terms of Chekhov's direct influence on modernism in theater and literature in Russia. There is quite literally no section on his works, style or thematic material, making this article look empty in comparison to others, like William Shakespeare, Ernest Hemingway or Franz Kafka. Basically the article fails 1b and 2c. I am more than willing to work on the article, but would be very hesitant to do it alone, since I am not really familiar with Chekhov past his reputation. - Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think you made the right call; it definitely needs work. Looking through the images, while many of them are likely free due to their age, the tagging of the files doesn't meet the current expectations for FA. I'll work on those over the next several days to at least resolve that from your "minor issues". The major ones need someone with more knowledge of the subject than I can offer. --RL0919 (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further issues upon looking further, these issues have come up as well:
  1. There are 10 block quotes for some reason; definitely too many
  2. There a substantial amount of WP:LEADCITE, and the lead in general seems far too short, especially when compared with the articles of the playwrights and writers above I had compared this article to
  3. A lot of the references don't seem to be references, but rather notes (16, 66, 67) - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another comment: If this article doesn't end up receiving the inclusion of a themes/works/style section then I still think it would meet GA standards, just not FA. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC) I take this back, a solid B class article at best, at least by current standards. Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: I agree with Aza24 that these are issued to be solved (except leadcite, which I don't mind that much). The article hasn't seen any significant work since July. The German wiki is significantly more diverse in topics (a very detailed description of his works), so I think it is clear it doesn't meet the comprehensive criterion. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (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) 9:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [4].

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

edit
Notified: Seloloving, Pentagon 2057, Robertksy, TheGreatSG'rean, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Singapore

Review section

edit

This article was nominated and promoted to GA status long ago in 2006. Since then, there has been many scattered and non specific edits as the network expanded over time. As of January 2020, a collective effort was made to clean up the article, especially the history section (which was appropriately summarised) and reformatted the rolling stock section to make the article less complex. However, there are still other outstanding issues, such as uncited fragments, and outdated information, and formatting issues at some sections.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Compared to the reviewed revision in 2006, it can be said without doubt that the article has expanded and improved a lot. Although there are certain sections (whole of section 4) in the current revision that may not meet the FA criteria (2b and maybe 1a), this does not compromise the core integrity of the article, and hence does not warrant a delist. I suggest creating a new spinoff page called 'Future of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)' for the chunky section 4 of the article to keep it inline with section 2b or moving it to History of the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) under a new section. In addition to that the article could do with a fresh copyedit to weed out the smaller problems with grammar or structure. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 08:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: It is exam season now where I live and consequently my editing activity has declined sharply. However I have no doubt that there will be another editor willing to take on the work (or myself if still not done after my examinations conclude). Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 09:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, I see many problems (as dicussed above), but this convinced me the article isn't progressing:

  • The opening of the second and third stage were delayed to 2021 as a result mainly due to the stoppage of construction works during the circuit breaker period as well as the quarantine and testing of all foreign workers in dormitories.[170][171][172][173][174]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 October 2020 (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) 9:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC) [5].

Parkinson's disease

edit
Notified: :Doc James, Anthonyhcole, Jfdwolff, WPMED, WP Psych, WP Disability

Review section

edit

Neurodegenerative Disorder: Parkinson's disease is a neurodegenerative disorder that primarily affects the dopamine-producing neurons in the brain. The loss of these neurons leads to a decrease in dopamine levels, which is responsible for the characteristic motor symptoms of the disease.

Environmental and Genetic Factors: Both environmental factors (such as exposure to certain toxins) and genetic factors are believed to contribute to the development of Parkinson's disease. Some genetic mutations have been linked to familial cases of the disease.

[htt[1][2]ps://weaffairs.com/2023/08/21/unveiling-parkinsons-beyond-the-tremors/ No Known Cure]: As of my last update in September 2021, there is no cure for Parkinson's disease. However, there are various treatment options available to manage the symptoms and improve quality of life, including medications, physical therapy, and in some cases, surgical interventions like deep brain stimulation.

Advancements in Research: Research into Parkinson's disease is ongoing, focusing on understanding its underlying causes, developing better treatments, and even exploring potential disease-modifying therapies that could slow or halt its progression.

Famous Individuals: Several well-known individuals have been diagnosed with Parkinson's, including actor Michael J. Fox, boxer Muhammad Ali, and Pope John Paul II.

Parkinson's Awareness Month: April is recognized as Parkinson's Awareness Month, a time to raise awareness about the disease and support those living with it.

Parkinson's disease is one of the dozens of medical FAs that have fallen out of compliance, mostly because their main authors are no longer editing, and no one has carefully kept the FAs up to snuff. Parkinson's was promoted in 2011, and its main hi updated, although it averages about 5,000 pageviews daily (one of the highest for the Medicine project). There has been no response to updates needed since February. Problems are throughout but are particularly noticeable in the Research section, which contains numerous statements about current research that are dated; if these items were significant, they would be mentioned in secondary reviews by now. (That section should also be considerably trimmed, as it has become a dumping ground.) Other easily noticeable problems are content in the lead that needs to be in sync with or present in the body of the article. For example, 117,400 global deaths and life expectancy. Subtypes are not mentioned. Parkinson's research has advanced considerably since this article was written, but the article has stagnated. It is also highly cited in the NINDS rather than relying on the underlying more authoritative literature. Page numbers or section headings are needed on lengthy journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PainProf:, I will not be able to take the lead on this; I have more on my plate than I can handle, and other medical editors seem to have yet to step up or take an interest. What do you think about where the article stands after your work? I am concerned that you and I alone are not enough to salvage the star here. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need to look at this in more depth; I have to submit a big grant this week but will look over it again at the weekend PainProf (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PainProf, any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s Move to FARC; there has been no other interest from the Medicine Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [6].

Battle of Shiloh

edit
Notified: Tirronan, WikiProject Military History, Wikiproject Tennessee

Review section

edit

This 2007 FA just doesn't meet the FA requirements, at least note anymore. Honestly, there'd be a number of things with this article that I'd require fixing before passing this through a GA review. A number of statements and paragraphs lack citations, such as "Grant's career suffered temporarily in the aftermath of Shiloh; Halleck combined and reorganized his armies, relegating Grant to the powerless position of second-in-command. Beauregard remained in command of the Army of Mississippi and led it back to Corinth. In late April and May, the Union armies, under Halleck advanced slowly toward Corinth and took it in the Siege of Corinth, while an amphibious force on the Mississippi River destroyed the Confederate River Defense Fleet and captured Memphis, Tennessee. Halleck was promoted to be general in chief of all the Union armies and with his departure to the East, Grant was restored to command. The Union forces eventually pushed down the Mississippi River to besiege Vicksburg, Mississippi. After the surrender of Vicksburg and the fall of Port Hudson in the summer of 1863, the Mississippi River came under Union control and the Confederacy was cut in two.", which needs a citation for verification, "For the remainder of the war, the Confederate armies in the West would go through a long string of commanders, much like the Union in the east, as Davis searched for a leader who was the caliber of Robert E. Lee.", and claims of which leaders were killed. There's many of these, I'll try and mark them all with CN tags later. The entire notable veterans section is uncited. 12 external links for a FA probably isn't appropriate, and some of the references are unreliable. A blogspot page is cited here, as are gems such as "lyricsinterpretation.com". There's several self-referencing popular culture things, such as the games. Additionally, there a major reference formatting issues. In the version that exists while I'm writing this, references 1, 17, 18, 28, 39, 40, 45, 49, 60, 129, and 130 are just URLS, nothing else. Other bad refs include "waymarkings.com" and "Essential Civil War Curriculum". Between the formatting, lack of citations, and bad refs, this isn't an FA, and isn't close, either. Hog Farm (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Part of footnote 125 reads, "The other references to this article do not make this claim, perhaps due to the uncertainties of the actual casualty figures in the earlier wars," which smacks of WP:OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fixed up the formatting a bit, but the article clearly needs a huge amount of work to make FA status for reasons explained by Hog Farm above. For instance, the popular culture section should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. buidhe 17:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problems with this article would be easier to fix than delist. Most of the cns are to uncontroversial statements, for example, Johnston's shrugging off of his wound is easily reliably sourced (and I've done that). essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com is the site of historian Timothy B. Smith, who has written several academic treatments of the battle. Yes, the statements should have been referenced to one of his books, but the nominator should have at least examined the link before referring to the site as a "bad source." Having gone through the concerns raised by the nominator, it appears most of them could simply being resolved by being bold, for example the external links may be excessive but they can simply be removed if necessary and are not a reason for delisting. Several of the uncited paragraphs are mere chronological recitations of subsequent events, such as Lew Wallace's lack of further military advancement and the summary of the Mississippi River campaign up to the fall of Vicksburg - these can be easily cited from the books found at their main articles. As for notable veterans, while the section may be unreferenced now, its claims can easily be verified and referenced. The popular culture section was cluttered with non-notable mentions that were rightly removed, but given the quick fix the problems mentioned do not justify the extreme remedy of delisting. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC) (EDIT: All of the citation needed tags have been resolved in some way, and the flagged unreliable sources removed.)[reply]
Sourcing and citation

The first citation is unformatted, and this doesn't look reliable.[7] (Quick glance only, not a comprehensive list of sourcing or citation issues, but indications that a check is needed.) And many citation formatting issues, samples:

  • The Orphan Brigade having received a few Enfields is cited to an 1898 brigade history, but I have removed the specific mention as there were also other Confederate regiments with Enfields, and there is no reason to single out the Orphan Brigade in this case. There is secondary discussion of the weapons, however, and I have added the relevant citation. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's some other sourcing issues, too. I just noticed that Ref 135 seems to be citing another Wikipedia article. That's yikes in a FA. Hog Farm (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have removed the statement in question as it is based on official casualty figures which have been questioned and it basically states that the war intensified and continued which is already known to those familiar with the Civil War, and implied later. Kges1901 (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, numerous issues. External link and Further reading farms suggest the article may not be comprehensive or updated; multiple cite ref errors and incomplete or poorly formatted citations (samples: "The Battle of Shiloh". and [1] American Battlefield Trust "Saved Land" webpage. Accessed May 25, 2018); MOS issues (markup in section headings which are also poorly named, missing converst and NBSPs); deficient prose (as a sample, see this section); text hidden in a template; one entire paragraph is a single quote in the "Battle" April 7 section. "In his memoirs, Grant intimated that ... " followed by a direct quote ?? It looks like this was once a fine article, as the bones are there, but the disrepair is everywhere. The version that passed FAC in 2007 did not have some of these glaring issues, and was 4,500 words; the current version, at 7,900 words, has been damaged and the content should be re-reviewed by MILHIST. I doubt it would pass GA, and do not believe this article can be repaired in the course of a FAR. Sad when the original writer moves on and once fine work deteriorates. Perhaps a rewrite will involve a revert and starting over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, style and sourcing. 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm could you please update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: My computer is in the shop, I'll give this a close combat through once I get it back. Hog Farm Bacon 19:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Issues

Background and plans

Given that this level two heading only contains a level three heading, there's some structure issues here. Some background information before February 1862 would also be helpful, it picks up rather abruptly a year in as is.
  • I have removed the level three heading as I don't think we need a non-military context for this as Shiloh is a battle not the war in general. Thoughts on my summary of the Western Theater situation? Kges1901 (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great. Thanks

Throughout the article there's some minor copy edit issues, especially with current MILHIST MOS (for instance "Shiloh Campaign" vs. "Shiloh campaign"), but these would be rather easy fixes.

File:Shiloh Battle Apr6pm.png is made by a Wikipedia user, but it's unclear what sources User:Hlj used to create the map, so the accuracy of the map is undetermined.

Several of the other maps are also Hlj creations without any sourcing where Jesperson got the information. The user seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter, but the maps are still user-generated without clear sourcing.

  • The argument you make about Jespersen is repeatedly made and honestly I think that his credentials should be added to map descriptions in order to clear this up so that the following does not need to be stated again. Jespersen is a professional cartographer who makes these maps for a living, unlike most other users creating maps. Jespersen created new maps that were used in William Glenn Robertson's River of Death: The Chickamauga Campaign, published in 2018 by University of North Carolina Press. In Slaughter at the Chapel: The Battle of Ezra Church, 1864 by Gary Ecelbarger (University of Oklahoma Press, 2018), Jespersen is described as a "professional cartographer" in acknowledgements for creating maps used in the book. Other works include for which he created the maps included David Powell, All Hell Can't Stop Them: The Battles for Chattanooga-Missionary Ridge and Ringgold, November 24-27, 1863 (Savas Beatie, 2018), Sean Michael Chick, The Battle of Petersburg (U of Nebraska Press, 2015), Mellott and Snell, Seventh West Virginia (UP of Kansas, 2019), Jones et al., Gateway to the Confederacy (LSU Press, 2014), Dunham, Allegany to Appomattox (Syracuse UP, 2013), Faust, Conspicuous Gallantry (Kent State UP, 2015). I think these are pretty impeccable credentials that go above the normal standard in WP. Kges1901 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The Aftermath section relies very heavily on Grant's personal memoirs, which is not really independent and is a touch biased towards Grant's viewpoint.

The Significance section could use expansion, this was a very important battle.

More structure issues: the level two sections Honors and commemoration and In popular culture are too brief to be stand-alone level two sections.

References

A total mess. Formatting is way off. A mixture of short and long citations, no real consistency. Most of the web citations are missing key things such as authors, publishers, dates, etc. A mixture of SFNs and other citation styles, no consistency whatsoever.
Not sure that "erenow.com examination prep materials" is particularly reliable, especially with the plethora of reliable sources on this topic.
See WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that master's thesis is far from the best source available.
Can't tell how reliable greatamericanhistory.net is, unsure of "by Gordon Leidner of Great American History" credentials. Again, far better sources can be found for this topic.
Unsure about Scout.com, looks to be different than Scout.com
The 7th Arkansas Infantry.com is not a good source.
Waymarking is not reliable.
Grant's memoirs are cited in multiple different ways

Further reading is a formatting mess.

Several periodicals such as the Blue and Grey are cited, but need ISSN numbers.

Nevin, the Time-Life books author, is cited 8 times. Time-Life isn't a terrible source, but there are far better scholarly works to choose from. Looking at the further reading bloat, it seems pretty clear this article uses lower-quality print and online sources in several places, ignoring better available scholarship.

There's a lot of work yet here to be done. Hog Farm Bacon 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: You make some crucial points. I'll take a crack at the formatting and information of the sources and then come back to discuss reliability and the other issues further. Aza24 (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: The formatting of sources and references should be good now, although I couldn't find ISSN numbers for the two Blue and Grey articles. Some things that perhaps Tirronan could clarify: I'm confused what the "Official Records, Series I, Volume X, Part 1" refers to, is it in reference to the "U.S. War Department, The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1880–1901." – because the link for that is here rather than a specific article/book. I'm also unsure which edition of Grant's memoirs is used for citations like 28 and 112, is this the book cited in ref 106 or 94? Aza24 (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Link's wrong for the ORs. The citation looks to be reasonably correct, I'll try to find the correct link over the next couple days. Basically, the ORs are original military reports organized into large books. There's fifty or sixty some volumes. Hog Farm Bacon 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Wondering if you might have a chance soon to look through the correct link? Also, for you and Kges1901 any thoughts on removing the In popular culture section completely? At the moment it's a just an essay about Shiloh, a poem that depicts Shiloh (but also most of the Civil war...) and a movie that depicts Shiloh but among many other events. Seems mostly trivial and containing things that are not particularly notable. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, the references to the battle in the pop culture section are tangential to the battle itself and they do not receive coverage in secondary sources about the battle itself. As a result, I would agree with removing the section as it is thus inevitably a magnet for trivia. Kges1901 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Kges. Nix it. I forgot about that OR link, I'll hunt it down tonight. Hog Farm Bacon 00:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: - I believe the correct link is [8]. In order to fit the source consistency requirement, the OR citations should probably be something like "Official Records 1884 p. xxx" with a full citation in the sources section. I'm getting 1884 for this volume from [9]. 1884 should be used, instead of the range, because a specific volume is being cited. Hog Farm Bacon 01:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as no one seems willing to take up the mantle and fix this up. Just a casual glance reveals basic issues with the source formatting etc. No comments in two months? --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain: I meant to get back to this but I have no idea how to it took me so long. I've finished going through the formatting and the citations are considerably better than before the FARC. That being said I've compiled a list of less than ideal ones (reliability wise), including: 33, 44, 54, 77, 80, 81, 98 and 118 – Hog Farm you would be welcome to look into them but I wonder if perhaps posting on the MilHist talk page could attract some help. In my mind, if these issues are resolved the article would be in good shape. Aza24 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24: Thanks for your work on this! The citations still wouldn't pass a basic source review at FAC. For example, fn 35 and 46 are just URLs with no other information. Some others lack a publisher, and I have questions about whether they are reliable (for example, fn 98). --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24 and Laser brain: - Still seeing significant issues. Several citations are only only the URL/title, I'm not sure that civilwarlandscapes.com and 7tharkansas.com are high-quality RS (or even RS), Carlson's master's thesis may not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP, citations to Grant's memoirs are all over place, cited in many different ways, usually without a page number given, there are several long quotes that I'm not sure add anything (see the final paragraph of the Battle, April 7 (second day: Union counterattack) section for an example). The section comparing the two armies is a little lacking, as there's ample room to mention such things as the artillery disparity. The reactions present have uneven weight - very heavily scaled to the Union perspective, giving little about Confederate reactions. Looks like it should probably be delisted soon, unless significant work is put in place soon, as significant work is needed. Hog Farm Bacon 18:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing issues I could probably deal with but the other ones are out of my depth. Either way, I don't really have the time or motivation to address either set of issues and it doesn't look like anyone else is planning too. I would agree it should be delisted - Aza24 (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2020 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [10].

Atom

edit
Notified: WT Physics, WT Chemistry, WT Elements

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was featured in 2008. Back then, this article was substantially different, and Wikipedia's standards for featured articles were also different. I think this article should undergo a second review to see if it meets modern standards. This is not to say this article is bad, I think it has improved over the years, but it should be reviewed under current standards, because our standards have risen. Kurzon (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is the article as it was just before becoming FA (July 2008): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=224375262 Kurzon (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurzon, could you please do the notifications? See step 6 of the nomination instructions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kurzon did not do the notifications, so I am doing them now. This may mean the review time needs to be extended by a week. The talk page was notified on 1 April, but no deficiencies were specified. In fact, the nominator specified no deficiencies in the nomination either :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I apologize for this, I didn't quite fully understand my responsibilities when I raised this issue. It's the first time I've ever done this. I thought simply posting an announcement was enough. Also, I didn't understand who I was supposed to notify. I don't know who in particular would be interested in this. Kurzon (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Physics isn't my area at all, but I'm seeing significant uncited text and MOS:IMAGELOC violations with sandwiching. Overall it definitely looks salvageable but someone will have to check the sourcing as well. buidhe 07:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed two images that were creating text-sandwiching, and replaced another in that area with one that included more-text-relevant illustration (as well as encompasing several of the removed-images' ideas). DMacks (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third graf of the lede ends with these sentences: All electrons, nucleons, and nuclei alike are subatomic particles. The behavior of electrons in atoms is closer to a wave than a particle. The former seems out of place; it might belong better in the second paragraph, where electrons, nuclei and neucleons are introduced. The second seems unclear to me. That is, I only know what it means because I already know about the topic and I can guess what it's trying to say. XOR'easter (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unclear, but you understand what it is saying? How would you express it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might cut it completely; it's redundant with the statements about the necessity of quantum mechanics in the first paragraph, and it's both loaded and vague. In quantum physics, we calculate the probabilities of events using equations that involve abstract "waves", and the events themselves look like the detection of particles. Neither aspect can be neglected; in what way is the behavior of subatomic particles within atoms "closer" to one aspect than the other? Is it helpful to lead the reader into imagining water waves when the waves we're talking about are oscillations in complex-valued probability amplitudes? The passage leading into it talks about radioactive decay: In this case, the nucleus shatters and leaves behind different elements. Do waves "shatter"? On top of that, the pictures [11][12] show clouds, not waves. Any reader who doesn't already know the material is being presented with disjointed statements, metaphors and imagery that they must try to fit together. XOR'easter (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurzon: could you please update whether this needs to "Move to FARC", or if you are satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading needs cleanup, citations should be formatted ( oxford dictionary – valency), and several of the sources are red-linked by Headbomb's script, please check them, eg Ted Talk. Can we not improve on "current state" as a section heading? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing
I fixed the oxford-dictionary ref (actually I replaced it with a different ref), and I see no other refs that are missing substantial details. There are currently no redlinks in the references. I did some CS1 cleanup. A few Further Reading entries were removed since the original discussion here began, and I just removed a few more. @SandyGeorgia:, could you clarify what "Further reading needs cleanup" is needed (format, inclusion criteria, annotations, etc.)? DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Featured articles should be comprehensive; why are 14 additional listings needed in Further reading? What do they add that is not already in the article, and if they add something not already there, why isn't it there? What are the criteria for these listings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional detail. I easily removed a third of them. I think more can also go (many are more about history of science which is its own article apart from mainly about atoms). DMacks (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming citation style is full ref format in the footnote. However, there are four that are WP:SFN (two each are the only use of their respective Bibliography and two are to different pages of one Bibliography entry). Should they all become standardized as full biblio in the footnotes themselves? DMacks (talk) 04:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back when first promoted, all references were full biblio inline AGRL or WP:SFN. Now we are down to 3–4 that use that latter style, so I'll convert those over soon. But now we also have many refs that are WP:LDR. It seems like we get a unified list in the References section, but is this something we should unify as far as being the "best we can" to avoid mixed WP:CITEVAR? DMacks (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Organization
I think this refers to the concern of XOR'easter regarding a few sentences' meaning and location? They seem to have been massively overhauled or removed altogether. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References

Headbomb's reliability script is returning a red link for:

  • Ghosh, D.C.; Biswas, R. (2002). "Theoretical calculation of Absolute Radii of Atoms and Ions. Part 1. The Atomic Radii". Int. J. Mol. Sci. 3 (11): 87–113. doi:10.3390/i3020087

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Headbomb's script is returning multiple redlinks:
What "red links" are there? I don't see any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Ted Talk, Chad Orzel isn't a quack. There are better sources for this than a pop science talk however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the link is helpful :) The four I listed above are flagged as pink by your script. Is there a difference between red and pink in your script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The script must be interacting with something, because only references being touched by the script is 10.3390/i3020087 (yellow, because MDPI) and ResearchGate/Zenodo (also in yellow, because those are general repositories and unvetted). The Chad Orzel link in the article is in red, for YouTube, but here it's plain since there is no actual link to YouTube. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to leave it to Headbomb and SandyGeorgia here, since possibly nobody else knows what script you are talking about, what the criteria are for "reliability", etc. But whatever it is, it's flagging a Journal of the American Chemical Society article as unreliable? DMacks (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb perhaps it's me, but I cannot locate anywhere on your userpage a link to or information about how I downloaded your script or instructions for installing it, so perhaps you can provide that info here and there? It appears to me that the problem here that is causing the sources to be flagged is that URLs are added (unnecessarily) to other sites that provide (only sometimes) the full text, and it's not clear to me if those are copyright violations. I remain confused about why they show as yellow links on some browsers, and pink on others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UPSD? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also I just inspected your User:SandyGeorgia/common.js page and you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js installed. So I suspect what you're seeing is red/pink/whatever for duplicate links, rather than unreliable ones. I can't reproduce the issue however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darnit. I will have to try to deal with this after I finish dealing with that copyvio issue elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting

The article uses three different kinds of dashes: spaced WP:ENDASHes, unspaced WP:EMDASHes (pick one or the other), and even spaced WP:EMDASHes, a no-no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on exactly what problems remain. Several content concerns were mentioned, some discussion happened, and the article was changed. Some ref/biblio concerns were mentioned, some of which don't even make sense, and the article was also changed. Some formatting/wording/style concerns were noted, and the article was changed. DMacks (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still considerable citation-needed issues. Hopefully someone will go through and address them without the need for tagging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from RD

The FA criteria states that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". What is being practiced right now at WP:FAC is basically - everything other than "the sky is blue" must be cited. In a quick read-over of Atom, I count at least 21 instances where I could add the citation needed tag, if I wanted to. I won't deface the article by doing that, though.
Then, we still have other problems (examples only):
  • "Bohr's model was not perfect and was soon superseded by the more accurate Schroedinger model (see below), (...)" - 1) why was it not perfect (ie, the limitations of the model)?, 2) that's not how you write Schrödinger's name, 3) the (see below) bit is unnecessary, since the section on Schrödinger's model comes right after;
  • In Schrödinger's model we explain what the spin is; in subsequent sections, we can find: "and a quantum mechanical property known as spin.", "Elementary particles possess an intrinsic quantum mechanical property known as spin.". This means that we introduce the concept of spin three times in the article;
  • "a mathematical model of the atom (wave mechanics) that described the electrons as three-dimensional waveforms rather than point particles." - The (wave mechanics) bit is not necessary and distracts from what is being said;
  • "In 1925 Werner Heisenberg published the first consistent mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics (matrix mechanics)." - Once again, if anything in paranthesis is important to the sentence, it should be integrated in the sentence, otherwise it's just a couple of random words; does this mean something like "In 1925 Werner Heisenberg published the first consistent mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics, known as matrix mechanics."?
  • In the "Fission, high-energy physics and condensed matter" section, we could take something more from the recently promoted Discovery of nuclear fission. "In 1944, Hahn received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Despite Hahn's efforts, the contributions of Meitner and Frisch were not recognized." This does not hint at any of the controversy that surrounded the discovery;
  • "Neutrons and protons (collectively known as nucleons)", then "All the bound protons and neutrons in an atom make up a tiny atomic nucleus, and are collectively called nucleons". - this info is only needed in the Nucleous section, the first instance does not add much to the context of the sentence (ie, subatomic particles in general);
  • "Electrons have been known since the late 19th century, mostly thanks to J.J. Thomson; see history of subatomic physics for details." - That sentence could benefit from a pipe link;
  • We say twice in the article that Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932; none of these instances is appropriately sourced though, since the first instance links to Chadwick's Nobel Lecture (not a third-party source since it's by Chadwick himself) and the second instance is unsourced (and not needed, I'd say).
I'm stopping now since English is not my first language so reading long texts in English about physics feels like homework to me, sorry. But I think the article still needs some work to keep the star. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "The sky is blue" does not need to be cited, but there is still plenty in this article that does need to be cited. It is interesting that the Retired Duke pulls the same first example that I saw: "Bohr's model was not perfect and was soon superseded by the more accurate Schroedinger model (see below), but it was sufficient to evaporate any remaining doubts that matter is composed of atoms. For chemists, the idea of the atom had been a useful heuristic tool, but physicists had doubts as to whether matter really is made up of atoms as nobody had yet developed a complete physical model of the atom." All of this is begging for attribution. There is more, and defacing the article with citation needed tags hopefully won't be necessary. A top-to-bottom reworking of this article is needed. Perhaps the nominator didn't lay it all out clearly enough, but it is nonetheless clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the above review, now with more time in my hands: (I swear I'm not sidelining you Sandy, I agree with everything that you said above)
History of atomic theory - In philosophy
  • "appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India." - Greece and India are not cultures;
  • The only source that I can access here via GBooks, goes on about philosophy and the atomic theory, but it does not explicitly back anything in this paragraph. The book certainly does not say anything about the Greek word atomos, and that is the small bit that the citation should be at least directly sourcing;
  • I don't think this short paragraph convey what can be said about the relationship between philosophy and the atom, there are whole books out there on the subject (ie, From Atomos to Atom: The History of the Concept Atom, also The Atom in the History of Human Thought that is there, but is not being used as it should);
History of atomic theory - Dalton's law of multiple proportions
  • We go directly from vague assertions about philosophy in the Ancient times to "experimental data" in the 1800s? That is quite the jump;
  • First paragraph here is unsourced - citation needed tag nº 1;
  • This section should be about Dalton's law in general; instead, we have three almost identical examples on atomic proportions, only with different compounds. Wikipedia is not a textbook to give three examples of every concept introduced;
Kinetic theory of gases
  • Full paragraph here is unsourced - citation needed tag nº 2;
  • I'm not sure that having a new section for every new law/theory/advance in the history of atomic theory is the way to go here - subsections become ultra short this way, and disconnected from each other;
Discovery of the electron
  • "1,800 times lighter than hydrogen (the lightest atom)." - Did they already know at this time that the atoms of hydrogen were the lightest? Because this is the first time that we mention measuring the weight of atoms in any way and it comes out of nowhere, when previously all we talk about is theories;
  • Why are "subatomic", "corpuscules" and "electrons" in italics?
  • This paragraph could use some copyediting, but more importantly, citation needed tag nº 3 at the end;
Discovery of the nucleus
* "This model is sometimes known as the plum pudding model." - citation needed tag nº 4;
Discovery of isotopes
*"discovered that there appeared to be more than one type of atom at each position on the periodic table." - This is the very first time we mention the periodic table in the article. No explanation is given as to 1) what is it; 2) why is it relevant that each "position"(?!) seemed to have more than one type of atom;
*"The term isotope was coined by Margaret Todd as a suitable name for different atoms that belong to the same element." - we haven't yet established in the article that different number of atoms = different element, ie. the basics of physics, why are we even talking about isotopes at this point?!
  • Delist - The article needs citations in several places, as shown above. I count 21 paragraphs without a citation at the end. The article needs a copyedit to get rid of the "many ancient cultures such as Greece and India" bits, the butchering of Schrödinger's name, etc. and the random italics and parenthesis everywhere. The article needs expansion in some parts (ie. philosophy / atom relationship, the fission controversy) and trimming in others (ie. the school textbook examples in Dalton's section). The article needs a coherent structure that explains that different number of atoms = different element before going on a tangent about isotopes. The article can't introduce the concept of spin three times in three different sections. The article can't repeat information without bringing anything new to the table in the second time (ie. saying twice that Chadwick discovered the neutron in 1932).
I reviewed the easiest part of the article (the beginning, history + subatomic particles) and I wrote 2 walls of text above; I don't want to think about reviewing the sections on Properties. Needs top-to-bottom rework outside WP:FAR. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC) [13].

Shielded metal arc welding

edit
Notified: User talk:Spangineer, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because 7 months after Beland flagged non-cited information in the article, significant parts of the article are still missing citations. This 2006 promotion has other deficiencies, such as an inconsistent ref style and not following MOS in some areas, such as external links in text. (t · c) buidhe 23:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Jabbar, Barira. "Unveiling Parkinson's: Beyond the Tremors". weaffairs. Retrieved 21 August 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/October_2020&oldid=986287242"