Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 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) 3:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC) [1].

Attalus I

edit
Notified: Sj, Paul August, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Olympics, 2022-03-01

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by editors on the talk page, the article over-relies upon ancient sources instead of scholarly, secondary sources. Z1720 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree that the reliance on the primary sources is too much. It doesn't seem to meet criterion 1(c)'s thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Ifly6 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns on the talk page were certainly accurate, but I don't have the sources I had access to a year ago and I'm busy with Genghis in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article primarily relies on Hansen 1971, although many other secondary sources are also used. While one might argue that there is an over reliance on Hansen, I don't see an over reliance on primary sources, since most cites to primary sources, are supported by secondary sources. To make this more clear, one improvement might be to move the cites to primary sources after the cites to the secondary ones. As for whether the article reflects a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", one wouldn't know unless one has done such a survey. I did attempt to do such a survey when I first wrote this article, but I haven't attempted such a survey recently and don't have the time (or inclination) to do so now. However, although I would be very surprised if additional sources could not be found which would improve the article, I would also be surprised if any very significant improvements to the article would result from a new literature search. Paul August ☎ 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look at the article, I'm not seeing any inappropriate use of primary sources where a claim doesn't also have a secondary source backing it up. As for more modern literature, it's not exactly my area but a quick search turns up Noah Kaye (2023), The Attalids of Pergamon and Anatolia and Peter Thonemann (2013), Attalid Asia Minor on the Attalids in general, and Tomasz Grabowski (2018), "Diplomacy of Attalus I in Asia Minor", all of which may be of use. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consulting such sources as these would undoubtedly improve the article. Paul August ☎ 01:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, after a brief look at these three sources, I don't think they are going to be particularly useful. The first two are books that do not seem to say anything particularly important with respect to Attalus I himself, having much more to do with the Attalids which came after him. And the third, while exclusively focused on Attalus I (although it doesn't inspire confidence that the abstract mistakenly starts out "Attalus III ..."), is a paper on a topic too narrow and specialized to have much (if any) place in this article. Paul August ☎ 02:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, Z1720, and AirshipJungleman29: could you provide specific examples of what sources you believe are missing or what text is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved in this FAR at all... (t · c) buidhe 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Although you did say in March 2022 that "The article has overreliance on ancient sources". Do you still think that? And if so could you give some examples? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reference to Attalid propaganda in the article at all. I do not believe I am misremembering that a corpus on the topic exists, nor that it takes a central role in modern analyses. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't commented in a FAR for quite a while so please inform me if there's some sort of established practice that I've missed out. I don't see the point of specifying contemporary primary sources over and over in the same refs as secondary sources. In any quality article on history, primary sources should never used exclusively for anything other than maybe direct quotes, historiographical details or perhaps to jazz up the prose with some "flavor".

Primary sources already stated in the referenced secondary sources should be removed from the refs. Otherwise, it implies that we as Wikipedia editors are equally qualified to interpret the primary sources as the secondary sources. It's a bit too close to WP:OR for comfort.

Peter Isotalo 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC No edits have been made to update the sources to more recent and scholarly ones, and it seems like the "Sources" section has duplicates of older sources listed. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the issue with this article is. Expert research on ancient history topics very often proceeds slowly: it is not unusual for the latest work on a given topic to be 30, 50 or even 100 years old. (Work might go faster were Classical History -- as well as other topics in the Liberal Arts -- considered a priority & funded adequately. In my research, I've noticed a clear drop-off on publications in Classics since the 1980s.) Moreover, the latest trends in research in this area are to emphasize either social topics (e.g. "Class relations as reflected in Antonine Coinage") or the implementation of technology in this field (e.g. "Computer reconstruction of Latin inscriptions"). Biographies on notable figures -- either in book or article form -- have been scarce, & have been growing more so as time goes on.
As for use of primary sources, I'm concerned about this repeated objection to them. They need to be included so that our readers can find the information more easily: Wikipedia articles ought to be starting places for research, not the end of it. By
So unless the nominator can point to some important publication that has been overlooked in this article, this review ought to be closed. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Over reliant on Hansen and primary sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog the Mild FAR is a two-step process; keep or delist are not declared in the FAR (Featured article review) phase. The options at this stage are Move to FARC (Featured article removal candidate) or Close w/o FARC or Hold in FAR for ongoing work. We try to allow every opportunity for article improvement before we delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unconvinced by the case against this article. Maybe there are more modern sources that need using, but nobody has been able to point to any specifically. I suggested what looked like the most relevant ones and Paul August assessed them and apparently did not find that they added anything to the article. Does anyone who thinks this article is still not up to FA standards either 1. think that there is relevant content in the sources I suggested that should be added to the article, or 2. have any further suggestions of sources which haven't been used which should have been? I'm with Llywrch here: it's all very well to say "no improvements; move to FARC" but I am not seeing any actionable suggestions for things which actually need to be done to bring the article up to standard. The closest to that is AirshipJungleman29's suggestion that there ought to be scholarship on Attalus I's propaganda. This isn't my field, but it looks as though AB Bosworth's The legacy of Alexander: politics, warfare, and propaganda under the successors may have something relevant, though I don't have access. And on the other side of the coin, does Paul August agree that there's anything to be said about Attalus I and propaganda which is missing from the article as it stands? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that there is much worth adding to our article regarding Attalus' state/dynastic propaganda, but then the hardest thing for a non-expert to judge is completeness, and I'm no expert in this field. However Kosmetatou's article (unavailble when I made my contributions here) would be well worth looking at, if for nothing else than to provide more modern sourcing. And yes her article does touch on Attalid state/dynastic propaganda, but I don't know how much of it would apply to Attalus I. Paul August ☎ 18:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: File:Mediterranean at 218 BC-en.svg doesn't seem to be based on a high quality RS. It cites File:218BCMAPMEDITERRANEAN.jpg as its source but this file only cites this image now unavailable on the personal website of a PhD student at UMich. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of the source it's based on, it looks like an accurate depiction of Asia Minor to me.
Yes it may be accurate but it needs to be sourced for FA. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite coincidentally, I've been looking at the Kingdom of Pergamon article and associated articles, and had no idea this was at FAR. I'm not a Classicist, but for what it's worth, Pergamon is not a topic that is all that closely covered just because the sources are pretty patchy. Having read it at the library just recently... Hansen's book is a bit dated, yes, but it's still to my knowledge the only full-length book treatment of Pergamon and the Attalids as a whole, and still the starting place of research and a detailed discussion of every little scrap we know about the period. It's in need of an update for the latest archaeological discoveries and some more modern skepticism of the ancient sources (Hansen is very nodding along with "yes, barbarians are super evil, Attalus is super noble, except he worked with the evil evil Gauls briefly toward the end of his reign despite them all being evil wretches"... which is the slant of the sources, yes, but we don't need to echo Roman prejudice.), but that update has not been published yet. Kosmetatou is very good and should probably be preferred over Hansen whenever they differ, but it's also much shorter and more of an overview than Hansen's in-depth treatment. Basically, heavy reliance on Hansen isn't really a problem here IMO.
    • On propaganda: I think a treatment of Attalid propaganda is good and have added some of it to the Kingdom of Pergamon article and stuff like Pergamus, buuuuut I'm not 100% sure how related it is to an Attalus I article. It's hard to know how much of later propaganda was him personally. The one thing we do know is that he hyped his alleged victory over the Galatians to the moon, but that's already in the article. Other stuff, like the Attalids as protectors of Greek city state freedoms, is harder to attribute to any specific ruler and probably better for the overarching article on the dynasty. And the family stuff - this is sourced, Kosmetatou agrees that the Attalids building a drama-free reputation of boring, good people who didn't fight each other was good for their reputation.
    • My main complaint about the article is one of tone. The idea that Attalus was a capable general and whatnot are just wild conjecture. The sad fact is we don't know for sure, although he certainly portrayed himself as one, and to be clear Hansen 1971 herself buys into this so it's more "dated" than "wrong." But if we're judging people on just breadth of kingdom, it's worth mentioning that Attalid authority outside Pergamum had basically collapsed by the end of Attalus's rule, which is a weird omission. All of those loose "conquests" (really more like "closest influence") in Asia Minor from the Seleucids were busy going into reverse at max speed in 198-197 BCE. I'll try and take a look at the article later, but this seems like it is still solidly FA-material, just needs some minor tone adjustments. SnowFire (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that assessment is probably accurate. Kosmetatou should be preferred in-text when possible, and when not possible the tone should be corrected to something less hagiographical. Aside from that, if SnowFire is correct about the lack of in-depth updates, I think that the article would just about meet FA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'll look into this tomorrow - I already had Hansen on hold at the library before I noticed this FAR, and will try to update with any conflicts with Kosmetatou (and possibly R. E. Allen's "The Attalid Kingdom" as well). SnowFire (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I'm a little less impressed with the article now, when diving in. It's... mostly fine... but this isn't Hansen's fault, it's the article writer, as a lot of "may have beens" upgraded into pure fact somehow. Hansen writes that the idea of Antiochis being a Seleucid noble sent over as a marriage is a "may have been", but somehow that became a statement. Kosmetatu outright says that Attalid support in the First Macedonian War was "ineffective" but somehow this became "a capable and courageous general" playing a "significant role" in the war. Hansen outright writes that the whole oracle story is surely bogus, but nary a hint of that before. Anyway the point is that I still think Hansen is a good source, just stuff sourced to Hansen doesn't always actually reflect her 100%, but that was on the WP editor not Hansen. (Not, like, made up, but there's definitely a pro-Attalus slant here.) SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone over the whole article. It is indeed very dependent on Hansen, but as noted above, I don't think that's a total disqualifier. If I was trying to pass this from scratch at FAC, then reading 10 books on other topics for the passing mentions of Attalus in them would be nice, but meh. Hansen is really the best we have for a deep dive on the Attalid rulers specifically (although, per other biographies of other ancient rulers, sometimes it ends up really being a history of the state & wars the person was involved in, rather than the person directly). Anyway, I was largely using the sources Hansen, Kosmetatou, Allen, Green, & Gruen for reference, along with some of the passing mentions. (Which could probably be removed, honestly, I'm not sure passing one-page mentions in general topic encyclopedias are THAT relevant.) I think the article should largely check out with those sources now and some citation drift has been removed. SnowFire (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: Are your concerns met? I've left the ancient sources in the citations since they were already there, but they are there strictly as an "FYI", and I've pushed them to the end of the cite to emphasize that the real source is the secondary source. The only things left exclusively sourced to primary sources are when the article quotes said sources. SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the overreliance of Hansen, but when other sources are not available we have to use what we have. WP:LIBRARY didn't seem to have anything that could be added, and if no one can find additional sources then I'm content with a keep. Z1720 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Z1720 is satisfied. I'll keep an eye out if I can find more non-Hansen sources in the long term to add to this article and the larger Kingdom of Pergamon article - although do note that lots of the citations merely include Hansen as one of many. SnowFire (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Keep (after corrections done below). I think the article is too short and not complete enough for FA. In addition to the lack of several works in the bibliography already mentioned, several important points are missing, such as sections about his coinage or building program. If possible, I think the article can be downgraded to GA. T8612 (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please be more specific? What works exactly are lacking? Do you know that there are any sources which cover his coinage or building program? Thanks. Paul August ☎ 13:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "lack of several works in the bibliography", you mean the suggestions above, Paul August looked into them and they don't appear to be helpful. Attalus is mentioned in passing in various sources, but honestly, the article probably needs to have the bibliography trimmed to not rely on single-page short blurbs more. Attalus's coinage is discussed in the article, although I consider its importance very low - it's in the image caption in "Early life." He used Philetaerus on his coins, not himself. (Not a great spot for it, but there's no real place in the narrative to discuss it since we don't know when, why, or anything besides some archaeology - it's not like Polybius had a contact at the Pergamon Mint.) The building program was mostly associated with Eumenes II; see Kingdom_of_Pergamon#Art,_religion,_and_culture. (For sure, Attalus I did build stuff too, but it's in the article already - statues & art donations & asking for money to rebuild the countryside after the Macedonians burned it, although who knows if anything came of that.) SnowFire (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @T8612: I've added some on coinage in Attalus I's era and another monument he built (diff); take a look. Personally, I think this is getting a tad off-topic from Attalus himself - we're basically taking guesses based on coins found at different times, and don't really have a way to know how much, if at all, Attalus himself was micromanaging coinage. Maybe they just got a new artist in 223 BC, and there wasn't any deeper intended meaning by Attalus. (Although who knows, the sources Hansen is citing are from 1910 and in German, so maybe there is stronger evidence in those.) That said, since I see from your user page you're into ancient numismatics, if you want to make an article like Pergamene coinage to add to Template:Hellenistic coinage, pages 216-224 of Hansen 1971 covers the topic in some detail to make a decent article with. SnowFire (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paul August and SnowFire: There is a book published last year: Noah Kaye, The Attalids of Pergamon and Anatolia, Money, Culture, and State Power, Cambridge University Press, 2022. It ought to be cited. It is said that Attalus built a stoa in Delphi (p. 20), which is not mentioned in the article, a good example of something important missing.
    I don't like the big quote from Polybius accepted uncritically. The Commentary on Polybius by FW Walbank should be cited in complement.
    More generally, I think a featured article should tell more than the just the chronology of his reign. Attalus tried to become the equal of the Ptolemies and Seleucids, by calling himself king, sponsoring arts, building monuments, etc. There should be a distinct section on this royal propaganda. To show you what I have in mind, I tried to do something similar with the Spartan king Areus I. Other thematical sections are possible. T8612 (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On Kaye's book: Thanks for the link. It's a good source, and one I plan on using in other articles. I don't find this particular stoa as "something important" and Kaye doesn't appear to discuss it in any great detail either. More generally, I disagree that the maximal, longest possible version of the article is always the "best" version of the article. Mentioning that FDR started the WPA is a valid thing to bring up; mentioning every single WPA project in FDR's article is overkill (or even an article like Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, first and second terms, which has a section on the WPA and that's it). The article already says Attalus "commissioned much artwork and sculptures". Maybe, perhaps, there should be something like an Archaeology of the Pergamene Kingdom spinoff article made with every known surviving sculpture and relic with its provenance, but if so, that's its own article, and would just be too in the weeds for this article. Despite the above comments, I've added the stoa against my better judgment (diff), but think that continuing to add every little detail would likely make the article worse, not better, because it would lose focus.
On the quote from Polybius: To be clear, I'm not the person who added that originally. That said, it's not accepted uncritically; the reference for the quote itself merely goes to Polybius, sure, verifying that's what Polybius said, but look at the previous citation for the substance (marked #52 in the current article, #51 in the older version: Hansen, pp. 58–59; Errington, p. 258; Hurwit, pp. 269–271. Those secondary sources are what's really being referenced for the event itself described by the quote. (And indeed, p. 21 of Kaye above you've brought up also references the event, seemingly without questioning its historicity.) If you look in the edit history of the article, I did actually change the stance of this passage somewhat. The old version of the article led the reader to the assumption that Athens was just recognizing Attalus's special genius as a Very Awesome Person, but I've included the more pragmatic rationale: Athens badly needed allies, any allies, to stand against the Antigonid Macedonians. So Polybius describing a big-wow show of ceremonial honors is very plausible. More generally, I'd argue that the best sources on this would be sources written by historians who are experts on Hellenistic history, not necessarily a source that is an expert on Polybius. There are parts of Polybius's story where his personal biases are important to talk about (e.g. with his buddy Demetrius I Soter) but this part isn't really it. I'll give a look at your suggested source when I get a chance, but my expectation is that it's unlikely it's the kind of source that even should be cited over the view of historians.
On thematic organization: There are many valid ways to write an article. What you're describing is a stylistic preference, not a mandate of the FA process. I think all of what you describe is already in the article, and don't believe that reorganizing it "thematically" is necessarily an improvement. "Trying to be the equal of the Ptolemies and Seleucids" is just describing garden-variety Hellenistic kingship in the era (which bordered on megalomania); we just have slightly better surviving sources on Attalus than, say, the King of Pontus or Bithynia whom I'm sure also thought they were Very Important Kings. And some of Attalus's philanthropy was just because Pergamon seems to have been unusually wealthy for its size - that's less him being specially generous, and more the state he ruled being better off. As I've already linked above, I have indeed written about Attalid royal propaganda, and it's in the article Kingdom of Pergamon. The parts that are particularly unique to Attalus are indeed currently mentioned in this article. If we spun it off to its own section, then I regret to say that the well is already tapped here - I want to stress again that this article is already including a very high amount of what the sources already discuss compared to most topics on Wikipedia, where there's substantially more cutting. (And a lot of what is known is still in the realm of wild guessing - like the whole war with Bithynia that we have 0 sources on, but might have happened because a peace treaty stopped hostilities, if there were any?) At some point it stops being an encyclopedic summary and starts being a journal article, or a straight paraphrasing of the chapter of Hansen on Attalus's era. SnowFire (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@T8612: I have looked at Walbank's Commentary on Polybius (didn't realize it was on archive.org , and ended up taking out a different book called "Polybius" by Walbank...). Volume II, p. 533-535 doesn't say anything of particular interest on the Athens welcoming. The closest to being relevant is that Athens had recently abolished two of the tribes named for Macedonians, hence there being some "naming rights" being open, which reduces the impressiveness of the honor even more. I've added it with the same proviso as mentioned before, that too many side details dulls the focus on the main story, but it's interesting enough I suppose. See diff. I looked at some of the other cites of Polybius in the article and the corresponding section in Walbank, and didn't find much interesting to add. I also looked in Walbank's book "Polybius" (which I checked out by mistake, thinking it was the book you recommended) and it doesn't say much interesting about Polybius & Attalus either. SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good.
There is also a problem with "Attalus was a young child when his father died, sometime before 241 BC, after which he was adopted by Eumenes I," in the first section. I think the dates have been mixed here.
Why is the "Peace of Phoenice" between quotes? in the Introduction of the cult of the Magna Mater to Rome section. T8612 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(de-indent) @T8612: The "Peace of Phoenice" doesn't need quotes, I agree - not my contribution, on a reread I was already rephrasing it.
On the Attalus being adopted part - I was going to go back to the library to re-check out Hansen 2nd edition again to which that's sourced, but it's somehow listed as "unavailable" now. Either someone else checked it out or they didn't put it back properly. I'd prefer to reply after re-reading the passage in case I messed something up, but from memory... I do agree he wasn't really a young child if Attalus Sr. in fact died in 241 BC (he'd have been about ~28) but 241 is just a later bound here, and I presume there was some reason to guess that the death was probably earlier. I think the date seems fine to me - at some point prior to 241 BC, Attalus Sr. dies and Attalus Jr. is adopted by Eumenes, but we don't really know when exactly. See diff - does this read better? SnowFire (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made small changes. Now I think the article could be a (weak) keep. T8612 (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
T8612 you have two declarations bolded in the FARC phase. If you've changed your mind about the delist, please go back and unbold it and strike it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. T8612 (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
T8612 and now you have two Keep declarations on the page; can you please have mercy on the Coord who has to close the discussion, and include only one bolded declaration? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia Done, sorry. T8612 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 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) 4:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [2].

Jefferson Davis

edit
Notified: Omnedon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Mississippi, talk page notice 2022-09-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been noticed for about a month with no changes. The sourcing has quite a bit of problems listed here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the bibliography, I have Davis 1996, Foner 1988, McPherson 1989, and Woodworth 1990. I can help push this over the line if somebody's going to take over, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the massive resourcing that this will take. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lost Cause propaganda whispers regularly throughout the text. I believe it would require a full rewrite to replace the psudohistory with the current scholarly consensus. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Vami_IV wants to take this on, I think that would work great. But, I'm wrapping up work on trying to keep Andrew Jackson out of the depths of FAR. If I'm successful, I'm willing to explore the life of Jefferson Davis, as his legacy is quite topical. It's not where I would've planned to have wandered, but it looks worthwhile and Jackson has already taken me into the former Choctaw lands of Mississippi anyway, so I feel like I'm visiting the neighborhood anyway. The sources Hog Farm mentioned are available on archive, and I think there are a lot of other supportive resources I can use. If I did take it on though, I think the second half of the article from "strategic failures" on would require a major overhaul. My preference would be to discuss his legacy in terms of the controversial issues: At first glance these look like: Role in Confederate defeat, attitudes toward slavery, post-war reputation (e.g., lost cause and the like). I suspect any work I did would be extensive enough that I'd need copy editing help when I'm done, and a couple of committed folk to give it a mini-FA-like look over. If it is best to leave it to another editor who feels more expert, I'm good with that. Thoughts? (I'll ping Guerillero too.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm fairly busy and am slowly working on a project in my sandbox to fix up Siege of Vicksburg, but I can help. We also need to factor in length concerns - prosesize tool is showing over 11,000 words, and the legacy needs more (and better) material. IMO the best places to cut fat are the death and burial section, the author section, and the gigantic mess of excess detail of all of court cases regarding him getting Brierfield back. We'll need more general biographies than just William C. Davis, but if there's going to be a push I can try to collect a few more together once I'm done with Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate that quick response! I'll wait to see how others weigh in, but it sounds like it'd be a worthwhile adventure just to get the opportunity to work with you. I've seen your style indirectly, and I admire it, but it would be very interesting to get a more direct sense of it. I think this is one of those articles where there is a chance of reaching SandyGeorgia's ideal of 9000 words or so. The article seemed filled with unneeded detail, and starts only at 11,000 words, so I think the odds are good. As to sources, I'm suspecting we'll be able to get plenty. (Though its possible I'd be wrong.) Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I won't be able to do a whole lot until after Thanksgiving - I'm traveling that week, and I'll be taking the third part of the CPA exam hopefully before then. I should have plenty of time after then, though. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Send me a bibliography and, let the record show, I can do some great things. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like Vami IV is on it! I'll be here if there's any need to pick up momentum later, just ping me, but it sounds like its in good hands! Wtfiv (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wtfiv/Vami IV: I am not in a rush. Take your time. We can come back to this in December, since I am getting married in November and will be away for most of the month. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you all have big projects right now, both life and wikiwise. (Hogfarm on finishing up the CPA; and Guerillo, marriage is a huge project, no matter what the context. To both of you congratulations!)
      I've got a little more time right now- though November may be more touch and go- so I can pitch in for now while you are taking care of the other issues, just starting on the citation sourcing the biography. If the narrative is already complete, it shouldn't be too difficult. That'll help build a bibliography for Vami's use when he's ready. Once someone else is ready to take over ping me on the talk page. Conversely, if I see major changes to be made I'll ping on the talk page as well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Work is ongoing on the legacy section; the rest has been largely rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I'm pretty much done adding content. I got done the first draft of legacy and am now just cleaning it up, but I think I'm feeling like I'm done with content at this point. I'm willing to to do whatever else is needed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Guerillero As nominator, what are your thoughts? Is it set? Does it need "next steps"? Here is my summary of how I've attempted to addresss the issues listed here.
      After I addressed them, I reworked the lead, mainly the last paragraph, to reflect the changes.
      • Family background: section rewritten. Removed much of the geneology, which was unclear.
      • Childhood: section rewritten and sourced.
      • Sourcing' is old and relies on Jim Crow era Southern Universities: have been brought up to date.(~45% of sources 21st century; ~40% 2000-1970; 15% earlier, not counting original sources.) Only two books are from Jim Crow era Southern Universities, Owsley's (1959) study on king cotton and Sulzby's (1960) book on Alabama Hotels.
        • Allen 1999 has a lost cause problem: Allen's biography is indeed quite different from the rest. Not used and has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Coulter's work has similar problems: Coulter is no longer used as a source.
        • Dodd 1907 is probably superseded by later work: Dodd has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Eaton 1977 was described as "admiring" by reviewers: Kept Eaton as third perspective in biography, but used less frequently. (For biographies: Cooper 2000 is ~107 times; Davis 1991 ~77; Eaton 1977 ~36). Eaton is sympathetic to Davis, but can be critical. His sourcing seems good, and sometimes he does a better summary than Cooper or Davis.
        • Patrick 1944's from 1945 makes me skeptical: Patrick has been moved to "Bibiography" spin-off.
        • Strode's three part biography is neo-Confederate hogwash and should be nowhere near a serious article about Davis: Strode's volumes have been move to the "Bibliography" spin-off.
      • The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause: Legacy has been entirely rewritten. There are new sections at the end.
        • "Political views on slavery" summarizes Davis's views on slavery. The description of each is supported by academic secondary sources, and each one is accompanied by an accessible link to one of Davis's speeches so readers can verify for themselves whether the summary is correct. (Throughout the article, I reference Jefferson's public works. The summaries are based on secondary sources, but the original sources allow readers to determine for themselves if the summaries are accurate.)
        • "Performance as commander in chief" addresses the evaluation of his leadership by historians. It also separates the evaluation from the Civil War narrative. The article originally seemed to be emphasizing Pollard's points in the early "Lost Cause" mythology, embedding the evaluations of Davis in the narrative and implying that his actions lost the War. The section addresses the negative evaluations, the mixed evalutions, and even the relatively positive ones.
        • "Legacy" addresses the evolution of Davis's image into a lost cause hero and the controversies sparked by the symbolism of his image in the 21st century.
      • Citation style is inconsistent: Style is now sfn and sfnm (I like citing multiple authors when each describes the same point or facts from a slightly different perspective).
      Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wtfiv: You did an extraordinary job! My objections have been quenched and I am ready to move to retain the article as an FA. Thank you for working on this. Having a balanced article on David goes a long way to improve our coverage of the American Civil War. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try to read through it again this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed on talk. Once the last few straggling comments are worked through, I'll be comfortable with the content here and I am comfortable with the sourcing used. It's a bit longer than ideal, but I'm too much of a nerd in this topic area to be good at suggesting things to pare down; I routinely read 500-600 page books on the Civil War for fun. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hog Farm. I appreciate your review. The care for Civil War articles is clear, as is your patience for editors who may be less expert. I think the issues you mentioned have now been addressed. And, I'm glad you are okay with the content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll make it clearer that I'm ready to close without FARC as well. The length isn't ideal, though, but I'm not sure what the best way to fix that would be. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have all been addressed here. Thanks for you hard work on this, Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article and, after some minor copyediting, I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

  • There are inconsistent p and pp throughout the citations (too many for me to fix), eg Davis 1991, pp. 4–5 but Cooper 2000, p. 12–14, and Cooper 2000, pp. 23–24 but Davis 1991, p. 23–24.
  • Jeff in Petticoats is an odd external link; if it's notable, why not it's own article?
  • The "Senator and Secretary of War" section (a level two heading) begins with: Davis took his seat in December and was appointed as a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Readers selecting to skip down to read a section should not have to backtrack to guess which year and which seat.
  • There are about 20 instances of the word also which should be reviewed for almost-always-redundant redundancy.
  • For an 11,000 word article, it is unclear why this bit of what seems to be trivia makes it in to the lead: Only two survived him, and only one married and had children. (Perhaps this will be revealed as I read?)
  • MOS:SEASON: In spring, Taylor had him assigned ...
  • Why do we need to know the final parts of this sentence? Davis gradually improved, and briefly traveled to Havana, Cuba, to restore his health and returned home via New York and Washington, D.C., where he visited his old schoolmate from Transylvania College, George Wallace Jones.[43]
  • What does it refer back to ? He made his first slave, James Pemberton, its overseer,
  • Advocating ... advocated ... vary wording ... advocating for the nomination of John C. Calhoun over Martin Van Buren who was the party's original choice. Davis preferred Calhoun because he advocated for southern interests
  • Vacancy ... vacated ... vary wording ... appointment by Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,[82] which had been vacated by the death

I am going to stop for now, as there are still copyedit needs. Also, as an example of how to cut down the excessive prose size, I offer this overly detailed paragraph:

  • Before his resignation, Davis had sent a telegraph message to Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus informing him that he was available to serve the state. On January 27, 1861, Pettus appointed him a major general of Mississippi's army.[137] On February 10, Davis learned that he had been unanimously elected to the provisional presidency of the Confederacy by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama,[138] which consisted of delegates from the six states that had seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama.[139] Davis was chosen because of his political prominence,[140] his military reputation,[141] and his moderate approach to secession,[140] which could bring Unionists and undecided voters over to his side.[142] Davis had been hoping for a military command,[143] but he accepted and committed himself fully to his new role.[144] Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens were inaugurated on February 18.[145] The procession for the inauguration started at Montgomery's Exchange Hotel, the location of the Confederate administration and Davis's residence.[146]

The paragraph is a sample of wordiness that can be trimmed, and I suggest checking throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOT Addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article can easily be cut to under 10,000 words of readable prose. There is excess detail on the history of the Civil War everywhere one looks, and as but one sample, trimming off-topic detail from this one sample para cuts it almost in half. Hurricane Plantation (which belonged to Jefferson's brother) has its own article and need not be explored here, and BTW, if his brother retained the title to the property, he did not "give" it to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current (97 words) Proposed (53 words)
When Davis returned to Mississippi he decided to become a planter.[37] His brother Joseph was successfully converting his large holdings at Davis Bend, about 15 miles (24 km) south of Vicksburg, Mississippi, into Hurricane Plantation, which would eventually have 1,700 acres (690 ha) of cultivated fields and over 300 slaves.[38] He gave Davis 800 acres (320 ha) of his land to start a plantation at Davis Bend, though Joseph retained the title to the property. He also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves to clear and cultivate the land, which Jefferson would name Brierfield Plantation. Davis returned to Mississippi and become a planter. His brother Joseph provided him 800 acres (320 ha) of land from the large holdings he was converting into Hurricane Plantation at Davis Bend. Joseph retained the title to the property, which Jefferson named Brierfield Plantation, and also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves.
  • Suggested change above implemented, but was reverted by another editor. Subsequently change "give" to "provided", as per suggestion.

This article has actually grown in size during its FAR; it does not need to be over 10,000 words, and a second pass to eliminate fluff should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • See talk
Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities to trim verbosity remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that Wtfiv, Hog Farm, et al. transformed the article into a piece of high-quality scholarship. We should keep the star based on the research done. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random samples only to illustrate copyedit and prose tightening needs (not comprehensive):

  • General: scan the text for the number of paragraphs that begin with repetitive phrases related to timing-- not only dates, but "after x" and "around this time" and "in the ... " and "on such and such date".
  1. . This section has four paragraphs; three of them have topic sentences starting with the time period, and giving the reader (who may want to scan for topic sentences) no idea what the paragraph is about.
  2. Refused ... refused ... consecutive sentences.
  3. "had dropped its case"?
  4. Why do we care about the Peabody Hotel enough to mention it twice, much less at all?
  5. any work
  6. Why do we have to mention Bragg here?
  7. Declining because of insufficient salary is implied, redundant.

In general, just because a source says something, we don't have to include it (verbosity, prose tightening).

May 8 version, 169 words Suggestions, 141 words (16% reduction)
After his release from prison, Davis faced continued financial pressures, but he refused to accept any work that he perceived as diminishing his status as a former U.S. Senator and Confederate President.[1] He refused a position as head of Randolph–Macon College in Virginia because he was still under indictment and did not want to damage its reputation.[2] In the summer of 1869, he traveled to Britain and France looking for business opportunities, but failed to find any.[3] After the federal government had dropped its case against Davis,[4] he returned to the United States in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company of Memphis, Tennessee. He left his family in England because he was not financially stable. Davis moved into the Peabody Hotel and committed himself to work, hiring former friends such as Braxton Bragg to serve as agents. Soon after his return, he was offered the top post at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, but he declined because of the insufficient salary.[5] Despite his financial situation, after his prison release, Davis refused work that he perceived as diminishing his status as a former senator and president.[1] He turned down a position as head of Randolph–Macon College in Virginia because he did not want to damage the school's reputation while he was under indictment.[2] In the summer of 1869, he traveled to Britain and France seeking business opportunities, but failed to find any.[3] After the federal government dropped its case against him,[4] Davis returned to the U.S. in October 1870 to become president of the Carolina Life Insurance Company in Tennessee. Leaving his family in England, he lived in a hotel and committed himself to work, hiring former friends to serve as agents. Shortly afterwards, he was offered the top post at the University of the South, which he declined because of the salary.[5]
  1. This paragraph starts with him going back to Europe for his family, but what is the para about (much more).
  2. Why do we need to know he was there when he found out his brother died; the date of his brother's death is later mentioned in the same section, where the relevance is established.
  3. Why do we need to know they stayed at the same hotel or eventually rented a house; this is all trivia.
  4. The by-date, by-date, by-date recounting in this section is reminiscent of proseline, but it's actually probably coming from a desire to include every detail, although some of this detail is not important to a broad biography.
  5. One of the sentence here is much too long, what Tony1 called "a snake".
  6. <public> eulogy, implied in rest of sentence, redundant
  7. merged the company with another firm redundant (what else do you merge a company with)?
May 8 version, 209 words Suggestions, 162 words (22% reduction)
Davis went back to England to get his family in late summer of 1870. While there, he learned that his brother Joseph had died.[6] When they returned, they first stayed at the Peabody Hotel, but eventually rented a house. When Robert E. Lee died in 1870, Davis delivered a public eulogy at the Lee Monument Association held in Richmond on November 3, emphasizing Lee's character and avoiding politics.[7] He received other invitations. He declined most, but he gave the commencement speech at the University of the South in 1871[8] and a speech to the Virginia Historical Society at White Sulphur Springs declaring that the South had been cheated, and would not have surrendered if they had known what to expect from Reconstruction,[8] particularly the changed status of freed African Americans.[9] After the Panic of 1873 severely affected the Carolina Life Company, Davis resigned in August 1873 when the directors merged the company with another firm over his objections.[10] Davis went back to England in January 1874 looking to convince an English insurance company to open a branch in the American South, but heard that animosity toward him in the North was too much of a liability. He also explored other possibilities of employment in France, but none worked out.[11]


After he retrieved his family from England in 1870, Davis received invitations to speak.[6] He avoided politics in his 1870 eulogy to Robert E. Lee at the Lee Monument Association in Richmond, emphasizing Lee's character instead.[7] He declined most opportunities, but gave the 1871 commencement speech at the University of the South.[8] He declared in a speech to the Virginia Historical Society that the South had been cheated, and would not have surrendered if they had known what to expect from Reconstruction,[8] particularly the changed status of freed African Americans.[9] After the Panic of 1873 severely affected the Carolina Life Company, Davis resigned in August 1873 when the directors merged the company over his objections.[10] He returned to England in 1874 looking to convince an English insurance company to open a branch in the American South, but heard that animosity toward him in the North was too much of a liability. He explored other employment possibilities in France, but none worked out.[11]
Sources

References

  1. ^ a b Collins 2005, p. 29.
  2. ^ a b Cooper 2000, p. 586.
  3. ^ a b Eaton 1977, p. 263.
  4. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 663.
  5. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 584–589.
  6. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 665.
  7. ^ a b Cooper 2000, p. 216.
  8. ^ a b c d Collins 2005, p. 21.
  9. ^ a b Davis 1991, p. 667.
  10. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 594–596.
  11. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 559–600.

I have pointedly chosen non-controversial (I hope) and non-political sections for illustrating that prose can be tightened. I don't expect my examples to be followed too closely, as I know my prose is less than optimal; these are for illustration purposes only. The article does not need to be as wordy as it is, a copyedit and fine-tuning is still needed and verbosity can be cut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No progress; copyedit still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll have some time to look at this at the end of next week. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly going through trying to trim, although I've run into a query for Wtfiv Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Jefferson Davis/archive1#Surrender of Black Hawk? on talk. On another note, I'm personally inclined to trim some of the details about his; for instance, I don't know that letting the readers know that Varina Anne died single at age 34 is necessarily the best use of our limited word count available. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that sounds reasonable, HF -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


HF's edits popped on my watchlist, so I skipped down ahead of where he has worked to see if anything has changed in the month since I last visited (it doesn't seem that anyone else has taken this on); one can still view any section (I didn't look at the top where HF is working) and find excess verbosity. Samples:
Author: the entire paragraph about the Southern Historical Society meanders and has repetitive verbosity. We start by saying he was invited to join, then a lengthy description of what it is (it has its own article), and then we say he joined. What's wrong with "in the 1870s, Davis became a life-time member" instead of saying that twice?
Paragraph edited and here to address point. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Death

  • "left Beauvoir" redundant, obviously
  • northbound steamer ... well, it sure wasn't southbound.
  • the next two weeks = two weeks.
June 11, 147 words Suggestions, 128 words (14% reduction)
In November 1889, Davis left Beauvoir and embarked on a steamboat in New Orleans in a cold rain to visit his Brierfield plantation. He fell ill during the trip, but refused to send for a doctor. An employee at Brierfield telegrammed Varina, who took a northbound steamer from New Orleans and transferred to his vessel mid-river. He finally got medical care and was diagnosed with acute bronchitis complicated by malaria.[1] When he returned to New Orleans, Davis's doctor Stanford E. Chaille pronounced him too ill to travel and he was taken to the home of Charles Erasmus Fenner, the son-in-law of his friend J. M. Payne. Davis remained bedridden but stable for the next two weeks. He took a turn for the worse in early December, and died at 12:45 a.m. on Friday, December 6, 1889, in the presence of several friends and holding Varina's hand.[2] In November 1889, Davis embarked on a steamboat in New Orleans in a cold rain, intending to visit his Brierfield plantation. He fell ill during the trip, but refused to send for a doctor, and an employee telegrammed Varina, who took a steamer to meet his vessel. Davis was diagnosed with acute bronchitis complicated by malaria.[1] When he returned to New Orleans, Davis's doctor Stanford E. Chaille pronounced him too ill to travel. He was taken to the home of Charles Erasmus Fenner, the son-in-law of his friend J. M. Payne, where he was bedridden but stable for two weeks. He took a turn for the worse and died at 12:45 a.m. on Friday, December 6, 1889, in the presence of several friends and holding Varina's hand.[2]
suggested paragraph implemented . Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

References

  1. ^ a b Collins 2005, pp. 50–51.
  2. ^ a b Cooper 2000, pp. 652–654.


A thorough independent copyedit is needed; glad to see HF is taking it on, but it would be really good to get even more eyes on this and Andrew Jackson so all the trimming isn't left to one editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issue created when editor inserted image of statue with grafitti to reflect current legacy. Gravesite statue of Davis removed to address concern. Wtfiv (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writings:

Writings is bibliography of Davis work: 4 books and five articles, an autobiographical fragment, and collected writings. Links are provided for readers' convenience. External links is collection of internet sites provided by editors, some having have bits and pieces of Davis's writing. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be chronological. small change to collection to reflect this.
OCLC's added. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does one Article list him as author, others not?
edit error...corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 03:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was due to citebot repeatedly putting the author back in. I think because this one article also has a jstor number. (It's the only one). Added blank last= and first=, which will hopefully address the problem. Diff here. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mixture of the way collections of his writings are handled, and it's not clear why they aren't all in External links. There are some in Articles, some in Collections, and others in External links. I can't decipher why they aren't all consolidated in External links.
This bundled all the externals together, moved link to Rice sit where mentioned in Bibliography of Davis's writings. See [3] Wtfiv (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv is actively at work here, and the length has been trimmed significantly. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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) 4:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [4].

Olm

edit
Notified: Yerpo, BORIS BL~enwiki, Leo Breman, RN1970, Susmuffin, Sheep81, Tone, WP Amphibians and Reptiles, WP Bosnia and Herzegovina, WP Slovenia, WP Croatia, noticed in May 2023

Review section

edit

This older featured article contains extensive uncited text in the conservation section and also needs a review for out of date content. For instance, the article references "the most recent assessment in 2008" when a 2022 assessment has since been released, and the range map has significant differences from the most recent map provided by IUCN. Also possible sourcing issues such as "After joining the European Union in 2004, Slovenia had to establish mechanisms for protection of the species included in the EU Habitats Directive." being cited to a document from 2002. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An IP has added more content to the article, but not all of it is sourced. Diannaa has removed some of it as a copyright violation, although other added content by the IP such as the unsourced bit beginning with "»At the EU level, Olm the blind cave salamander" send off vibes of being copy and pasted from somewhere to me, with the chevrons and other unusual formatting in there (like the unintentional line break). Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it all looks sketchy. It should likely come out, just in case. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: I improved referencing and updated the assessment. The map is now equipped with a note until a more precise map can be drawn by someone who knows how to do it (the marked area still shows the maximum extent of the olm's native range). The recently added text by an IP editor was largely just repeating what was already stated, and was mostly removed. This could have been the olm researcher Dr Boris Bulog who already collaborated with me on writing the originally expanded article. He may have copied some of his existing work, which would explain odd markup; I'll try to sort it out if he contacts me again, and see if there's anything useful. — Yerpo Eh? 09:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the uncited statements have been mostly resolved. However, the "Conservation" section is very disorganised and there are some MOS:TODAY issues. I am unsure of the quality of the sources because I am not an expert in this area, so I will not comment on if the new sources are valid. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; the prose is not at FA standard. I took a look at the Conservation section based on Z1720's comment, and agree it is all over the map, but I also noticed there the substandard prose. The first two sentences use repetitive prose (extremely vulnerable, extremely sensitive). "The contamination of the karst underground waters is due to the large number of waste disposal sites leached by rainwater, as well as to the accidental overflow of various liquids." Various is an overused and little useful word; perhaps something more useful like polluting? "The reflection of such pollution in the karst underground waters depends on the type and quantity of pollutants, " ... basically says that pollution depends on pollutants, not very helpful, and generally always true. " but they are quite different from those in surface waters." Quite different is different. "All of these substances persist in the environment, being slowly, if at all, degraded by natural processes. In addition, all are toxic to life if they accumulate in any appreciable quantity." --> These substances persist in the environment, and are degraded slowly, if at all, by natural processes; they are toxic when accumulated in appreciable quantities." Clean up "The olm is nevertheless noted for its capability of surviving higer (SIC) concentrations of accumulated PCBs than related aquatic organisms." ... to ... "Nonetheless, the olm can survive higher concentrations of accumulated PCBs than related aquatic organisms." "Areas inhabited by the olm were eventually included " "At present they can only be experienced" ... since when? Continuing to the next section: "The enthusiasm of scientists and the broader public about this inhabitant of Slovenian caves is still strong 300 years after its discovery." --> Scientific and public enthusiasm surrounds the Olm 300 years after its discovery. And so it goes throughout; it will be difficult for this article to come to FA standard unless an experienced biology FA writer engages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 13:13, 27 October 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) 04:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [5].

Arena (countermeasure)

edit
Notified: Catalan, MILHIST WikiProject, diff

Review section

edit

This article was in pretty poor shape a month ago when I first started working on it. There was: no picture of Arena (other than a somewhat dubious graphic), little mention of attempts to export Arena, and also an inaccurate statement that Arena is the successor to Drozd. I have resolved these problems somewhat. There is still: no information about why Arena has still not entered volume production, no comparison to the earlier Drozd or later Afganit, little information about the system's performance, and much missing history about the different variants and attempts to market Arena. User:Ottava Rima's comments at the article's FAC in 2008 still ring true: The article does not set up why there are two predacessors. It does not set up how they are connected. It just simply lists them, says some sort information on them, then abruptly declares that there was a new system. This is not enough background to even discuss the history of the item in question.

I may be able to bring this up to GA status at a later date. Schierbecker (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [6].

Harriet Arbuthnot

edit
Notified: ALoan (has not edited since 2007?), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject London, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-07-02

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, very long and very short sections, dubious sources that need to be checked, and additional sources that I posted on the talk page that might be included in the article. There was no response or edits to the article when I posted the notice on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Came here from OTD (have scheduled this as a death on August 2). The list of comments is pretty large, such that it's unsurprising nobody responded to them all in three weeks. I've consolidated the death and legacy, which also shortens the relationship section. Most of the sources look fine at a glance; #29 is dead, so hard to see what's going on with it, but I imagine the fairly basic material it supports could be re-cited somewhere or other? (It's also obviously true from the photo.)
I'm not an expert on this subject, so can't speak for the additional sources or cn tags. One of the tags is in the middle of a paragraph, which is a red flag for tagbombing; the other is at the end of one. A lot of FAs of this era are a little bit loose with inline cites but, upon trivial investigation, are 'solved' just by reproducing a cite from earlier in the paragraph that covers the whole thing. I agree it does intuitively look like there could be more added to the legacy. Is there any particular reason you think the additional books might have more info? As noted in the original FAC, it doesn't seem very much was ever written on her, and it's not like history as a field is currently being poured infinite amounts of funding to write all-new analyses of all-new information. Vaticidalprophet 10:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: I think your question refers to the sources that I placed on the talk page of the article. This was a sample of sources (with I think more than a passing mention of Arbuthnot) that I found after a quick search, which causes me to wonder if the article is still comprehensive. When I posted my message on talk, I was hoping that someone would offer to take a look for sources and add to the article. Is anyone willing to ensure that this article is still comprehensive? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not exactly my area, but it's not exactly not my area either; I will try to have a look at the sources you mention on the talkpage soon. I am concerned with some of the sourcing currently present in the article: for instance the following does not seem to be explicitly supported by the cited source: "Marriage to such a pillar of the establishment as Charles Arbuthnot opened all doors to his young new wife, who, as one of the 14 children of a younger son of an aristocratic family possessed of no great fortune, would otherwise have been on the periphery of the highest society. However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight." Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [7].

Baden-Powell House

edit
Notified: Rafmarham, Wimvandorst WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Scouting

Review section

edit

Posted notes in 2021, issues remain.

  • The house was sold in 2020, and while the clearly out-of-date elements in the text have been addressed, there's some text that remains in question (is the layout the same after conversion?)
  • More at issue is the sourcing. While some of the issues have been addressed, there's still a number of clearly unreferenced statements throughout (aforementioned layout section is unreferenced entirely, for instance.) The sources that are used are inconsistently formatted, and I'm not sure are high-quality.
    • There's also the question of the foundational sourcing being mostly to primary sources: The Official History of Scouting, annual reports from the Scouting Association, an apparently self-published Gilwell Park and the White House: A brief history and guided tours, or The story of B.-P.'s House, also by the Scouting Association. Based on what's presented, I'm not entirely sure that the house meets notability standards, let alone FA standards. Quick Google Books searches only brought up capsule-style mentions in guidebooks and the like which might count as reliable sources but don't really provide enough context to support a lot of the primary information.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I almost FAR'd this myself back in July but decided to wait. The out-of-date content, while abated to some degree, is not actually fully resolved. The ""Baden-Powell House" (PDF). Scoutbase Fact Sheet. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 December 2004. Retrieved 17 May 2015." source actually indicates that it is from 1999, and this source is used to support the following content:
" At its peak, it saw on average 30,000 people spending the night and 100,000 meals served in the restaurant." - we're citing a peak figure to something from only two years after the remodel when the thing was still in use for 20 years and the underlying source indicates those figures as a current number (as of 1999), not a past peak
And of course, a 1999 source doesn't (and can't) support "Since its inception, Baden-Powell House provided a hostel for people visiting London and since 2001 this became the main focus of the building."
And "In the period 2004–2006 the hostel participated in the Youth Hostel Association, after which the Scout Association entered into an agreement with German company Meininger Hotels with Scout members from the UK and abroad being able to stay at a reduced rate" is in a paragraph with only that 1999 Scoutbase Fact Sheet cited and unsurprisingly, the 1999 source fails to support content about the 2004-2006 period and the events afterwards.
This article needs more sourcing work than would appear from a first glance. Hog Farm Talk 01:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [8].

Proteasome

edit
Notified: Opabinia regalis, Vital Articles Level 5, WikiProject Molecular Biology 2023-07-17

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are many unreferenced passages. The article also needs to be updated with more recent sources: there are some sections like "Clinical significance" which talk about medical information, and this should be updated with the most recent literature to ensure that the information is still reflects the consensus of the medical research community. Z1720 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 September 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/October_2023&oldid=1183408857"