Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2024

< 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) 4:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [1].

Thomas C. Hindman

edit
Notified: Nishkid64, Lieutcoluseng, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP USA, WP US Congress, WP Politics

This is perhaps a bit drastic step, but one I've been thinking about for several years now. When this was promoted in 2007, this was 22kb long. In early 2022, I rewrote this article after noting sourcing issues. The article is now 47kb long, and uses a number of sources not used in the original. According to xTools, I'm now the author of 81.6% of this article. The relationship between this and the promoted version is essentially a Ship of Theseus question. At the time, I was counseled to not take this through FAR and to seek reviews through WP:URFA/2020, but I've had trouble getting those. It's been over two years now, real life is forcing me to become less and less active with on wiki, and I really just want to have closure on this before either a) I lose the residual familiarity with parts of the sourcing material that remains or b) my career finally gets so hectic that I'm not active enough to push this over the finish line anymore. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - after this was rewritten, there were some concerns about prose quality brought up (which seems to be a hallmark of most of my writing). The main Neal & Kremm source is on the Internet Archive, and I own all of the other book sources except for Woods (which I have been looking for an excuse to buy off of eBay anyway if it becomes needed), so I should have the source access needed to resolve any concerns. It'll just be a matter of squeezing in any work on this around my job and household responsibilities. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(groan) - I understand but...yeah...time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note, it was a 2007 promotion, with 4 minimalist supports. These are Hog's updates. Obviously it needs a review. My advice would be to ask for a look at GOCE, and then update here. I doubt that the new version will have factual or sourcing issues, given the nominator's form, but it would be good to do those checks after any prose issues (haven't properly looked) are largely dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can come up with - I just don't trust the average GOCE to produce FA-quality prose. I'll post a request at the WT:FAC talk page; that'll hopefully get a better-quality copy editor. The link above also undersells the scope of the changes a bit - this is a fuller demonstration of the changes. Hog Farm Talk 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie has kindly taken a pass through the prose and has addressed a number of issues. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its an exhaustive review, enough that I'd be happy to close this if you resolved the issues raised....you have enough audited form that trust can be made on use of sources. Commend your diligence in raising this here. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just taken a quick look at this. FWIW, I think Hog Farm and Mike Christie have resolved the issues and the review could be closed without reassessment of the article. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2024 (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) 4:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [2].

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

edit
Notified: Remsense, Theknightwho, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Writing systems, diff for talk page notification (2024-06-25)

I initially raised my concerns about the Featured Article's current quality two years ago, like in-depth coverage and sourcing. This year, there have been edits in attempt to address the issues, so I listed the article at WP:FARGIVEN. I was pinged to review what has been done so far. I gave the edit a good review, but I'm unsure how "satisfactory" the article is to this date because I've not been too thorough with the article amid my review. I really hope this Review ends without heading to the FARC. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what else to say other than I think I've done a sufficient job maintaining FA status for this article, but if anyone has any concerns I'm glad to address them. Remsense诉 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems pretty close to FA criteria, but I notice a few things. 5 seperate sources listed in the bibliography appear to not be cited at all (Chen 1999, Ch'en et. al 2000, DeFrancis 1972, Lin 1972, Simon 1942.) Should these be incorporated or can they be cut from the bibliography?
Additionally, the article doesn't talk about its use by the PRC - neither the date it was adopted or the date it was superseded by the Hanyu Pinyin is mentioned or cited, despite the 1949–1987 in the infobox. Also, the UN used it from 1945–1971 according to the infobox, but this is also not elaborated on at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the observations! I'll cut the unused sources from the bib for now. Remsense诉 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Taiwan 20+ years ago, I found GR was not super rare among company names, so I am surprised we have so little examples of use in Taiwan between 1945 and 1986. Shiatzy Chen seems to be an example of a GR name? The "Tonal spelling" section could do with some examples; it is hard to understand the way it is and seems unreferenced. In particular, which sounds are considered sonorants in Chinese? —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a much better sense of how to source this sort of information now, so it should be little issue incorporating it into the article. :) Remsense诉 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: other than the Taiwan usage details, what do you think about the article presently? Remsense诉 20:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been able to get myself to do much wikiwork recently (I probably need one of my periodic breaks). I think the main issue for me really is that the article focuses quite a lot on the early history and YR Chao's contribution, with rather little on post-WW2 usage or why GR was dropped. My edition of the Taiwanese MoE's children's dictionary (2000 printing of the 1993 version) gives pronunciation in Bopomofo plus GR, so there is at least anecdotal evidence that use of GR was not completely dropped yet during the 1970s. (BTW here is some comment on the use of GR in YR Chao's Grammar). —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's the one area I still need to buff up. I'll bug you again when I feel that's tied up. Remsense诉 22:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find much secondary attestation of use in Taiwan after 1986, truth be told. Remsense ‥ 论 05:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: Have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so, but I'm uncertain. Kusma's opinions should have more depth than mine. George Ho (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much scholarly literature about the use of GR in Taiwan either. There is probably something about ad hoc romanisation (inspired by GR, WG and just random Hokkien sound) somewhere, but it is a bit tangential to the questions at hand. My concern about "sonorants" has been addressed. I really don't have time for a deeper dive into the article right now, so you can treat my concerns as having been addressed. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Treat my review as "addressed" by default for now as well. I don't see any obvious issues at this time. The article quality is FA-quality, AFAICS. No missing important details. As described, this romanization fell out of favor in both China (for pinyin) and then Taiwan (for phonetic symbols II). George Ho (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for circling back around on my—and many others'—cases in order to help these processes along. I know it must be frustrating sometimes, but it does help me get my business together and push through to do what needs to be done to get articles how I want them to be. Remsense ‥ 论 14:31, 19 October 2024 (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) 8:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC) [3].

Minneapolis

edit

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-28

I am the nominator of the 2007 Minneapolis FAC and have been working to bring it to current FA standards since at least 2020 through several talk page archives, with SandyGeorgia looking in. I believe it is at today's FA standard, and ready for review at FAR. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never did finish my pre-FAR review on article talk; will try to get back to that by leaving comments here this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been much busier than expected this week. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to give the new Turnpike album a second listen anyways, so might as well start going through this tonight. Saving the lead for last ...

  • I know that newer style of interactive map has its benefits, but is there any way to also show the reader at a glance where Minneapolis is located in the country, rather than making them get into the interactive map, fiddle with the zoom system which is kinda balky on mobile, and then try to figure out that information?
Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?
  • "The US Army Corps of Engineers built a concrete dike that held in 1876" - needs rephrased somehow. Current phrasing implies that there was some sort of particulalry important holding that happened in 1876
Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.
  • So do the sources indicate why exactly the milling and logging declined? From what I can tell the milling seems to have taken over about the time the logging went down, but it's not obvious from a quick skim of sources if the milling directly supplanted the lumber, or if the local forests had been extirpated, or something else altogether
Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?
  • "With the Fuji-Ya restaurant leading the way on the west bank," - is this a particularly important detail to note? I had noticed when I was doing my informal review on the talk page several months again that the article had a tendency to make unnecessary name drops
Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.
  • Susan, I'd like to hear your and Sandy's thoughts on this, but I have some tone concerns here. Stuff like "formidable Institute of Technology", "in the end, to the nation and the globe", and others.
My shorthand, and no problem to omit.
  • The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about "fabulous" which I removed).
  • Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.
  • " and supplied about half the electrical needs of the US military during World War II" - the sources actually says "during World War II the firm produced nearly half of all the electric plants used by the American military during the conflict". There is an important distinction between "electrical needs" which implies all electricity usage, and then producing half of all generators, which doesn't really equate to half of electricity usage
Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

Stopping here for now. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those examples of tone are necessary, and they should be omitted unless the source specifically supports them, in which case they should be quoted and attributed. Thanks for reviewing, HF; it's been several months since I last took a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hog Farm. I was looking forward to your comments and they didn't disappoint. Everything done as indicated inline above, with one exception. Looking for an alternate way to say "nation and the globe." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm embarrassed to say the phrase is a too-close paraphrase of William Lass. Much better to omit it. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I found a few more adjectives (extraordinary, extraordinary, diverse). Are you all recommending they be omitted?
  • "The truck drivers union executed strikes with extraordinary "military precision"". I read Walker's book and it was astonishing but may be better unsaid.
  • Ditto for the post-Floyd, "The local insurgency resulted in extraordinary levels of property damage in Minneapolis".
  • Ditto for "the park board owns the city's canopy of trees,[389] and nearly all land that borders the city's diverse waterfronts."

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On those three: my thoughts would be to attribute use to attribute the "military precision" quote to the author and then leave off the extraordinary if the source doesn't use that language, the damage would be best to attribute to the author, and I'd recommend ommitting "diverse" in the waterfronts example. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Hog Farm. Hope I'm learning to identify some of the "tone" problems you point out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another. In the lead, "—the only natural waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River." Maybe shorten to, "the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River"? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is fine, unless you really want to trim down the article word count. I haven't forgotten about this review; I just haven't had time - June through August/September is just probably going to be a hectic time for me at work most years now. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good, we'll keep it. No worries, I'll hold on until you are free again. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming - I'm skipping the structural racism section for now as that is probably going to be the trickiest section to write and review and I'm simply too tired for that now.

So you know, that section is fairly tightly written and has been through WP:RSN.
"Sources disagree on the exact location and elevation of the city's highest point, which is cited as being between 965 and 985 feet (294 and 300 m) above sea level" - is Soper's 1915 figure really relevant anymore? The city has grown so much in the last 108 years that it's not surprising at all that more recent sources give a higher peak as the city expands
There's no reason to doubt Soper, the academic. Soper's estimate was 2 feet less ("965 feet, or thereabouts") than John Carman gave in 1975. And his location, identified by placenames that still exist, is loosely the same as contemporary sources. However, you have a good point. We can simplify the article by removing one old journal paper. So now we begin the disagreement in 1975 instead of 1915.
"Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023." - community blog, I don't know that this meets the high-quality RS bar for featured articles
Streets.mn was checked out at WP:RSN. So were several other sources, archived here. Everything passed (except one that had no comment) for noncontroversial use here. We only use it to define the term "non-conforming".
Would it be worthwhile to provide a sentence or two about the history of neighborhood development in Minneapolis? Right now the section is heavily weighted towards the zonining issue and a brief overview of neighborhood development would provide balance
For now, I resurrected the Neighborhood Revitalization Program that ran from 1991 to 2011, for which I have a book source. Brought this up to date with a combination of sources.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue, hopefully soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [4] which doesn't seem to support this at all
Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
  • "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ready for arts and culture, apologies this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The center expanded in 2005 with an addition by Herzog & de Meuron.[283]" - I'd cut this sentence; this is more relevant to the Center article than to the overall article on Minneapolis from the more high-level view we need to take with articles on major cities like this. I have similar thoughts to the extensive description of the enlargements to the Mia. The idea is to give a general overview of the topic of Arts in Minneapolis, and I don't know that a blow-by-blow description of building renovations is necessarily part of a general overview of that topic.
Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.
  • "helped make First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry the heart of American popular music" - "the heart of American popular music" is quite a strong statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice, I'd recommend using some form of direct attribution to a source here
Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.
  • I'm unsure of mentioning apparently non-notable concert venues by name. Theoretically any bar with a stage could be considered a concert venue, and we should only really be hitting the highlights here
Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.
  • "After refugees explained the old name was a reminder of their most dreadful days, the American Refugee Committee changed its name to Alight. Alight helps millions of refugees in Africa and Asia with water, shelter, and economic support" - this needs significant work. The connection to Minneapolis is not at any point stated, and the discussion about the name change is not relevant to the city of Minneapolis. I'm sure the organization does good work, but this isn't the place to elaborate too much on a single organization.
Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the historical museums section, also pinging in SandyGeorgia for another opinion on these points. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis hosts the world's only Somali history museum as of 2021" - The Somali government re-opened its national museum in 2020, and our article on the Somali Museum of Minnesota indicates that it's only possible its the only Somali history museum in the world. This seems to be an awfully strong claim to support with only a website seeking to highlight Minnesota tourism opportunities
Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.
  • "In 2016, following the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, Lynx captains wore black shirts as a protest by Black athletes for social change.[370]" - I'd argue that this belongs more in the article for the Lynx
Took it out.
  • "enabled Horace Cleveland to create his finest landscape architecture," - finest should be attributed to the specific author unless you can find a source indicating that this is a consensus view
Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.
  • "Ruhe stopped the state from building a highway through Minnehaha Park, a conflict that the park board appealed to and won in the US Supreme Court. During Ruhe's tenure, the board learned to accommodate growing public participation, and it became an environmental steward when faced with Dutch elm disease and improving water quality.." - is this from those pages in Smith?
Yes. It's a summary not a quote.
  • "In 2022, 500 participants[386] ages 14 to 24 served as Teen Teamworks recruits for on-the-job training in green careers[387] or as future park employees.[388] " - I don't know that this is actually relevant to include; it's not unusual at all for cities to involve teen park workers in things
I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

I'm open to discussing any of these as they could well be controversial; ready for the government section coming up next. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving my powder for the Media section, the only place I anticipate pushing back. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm have you been through Parks and recreation yet? I don't understand this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volunteer missionaries,[439] the Pond brothers got permission at Fort Snelling to teach new farming techniques and a new religion to Chief Cloud Man and his community on the east shore of Bde Maka Ska.[254]" - the first question is when this was occurring, and the who gave them permission is unclear as well. Is this from the Dakota, the US Army at Fort Snelling, or the territorial government?
Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.
  • "divided between community and magnet" - is it worth linking magnet school here?
Good idea, done.
  • "Some of the magazines published in the city are [...] Artful Living" - we shouldn't be sourcing this to the magazine's own "advertise with us" page
Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.
  • I also don't know that we should be listing the magazines for which we don't have an independent source noting its existence; I've found that independent RS sourcing is usually a good test as to if mentioning something is due weight or not
Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?
  • Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.
  • "about five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines" - cited source lists 6?
Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.
  • "Racially discriminatory federal housing policies starting in the 1930s "prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities", and "left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents."" - extensive quote should be attributed inline
Source identified inline.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now skimmed through pretty much the whole article except for the lead, although chunks of it only rather light skimming because I am rather worn out. Once this last batch reaches resolution and I've gone through the lead, I would prefer to have a fresh and more energetic set of eyes look over it before I take a fuller pass through the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States" - this feels like something that should be mentioned in the body
Added to Census and estimates.
  • Several of the nicknames/motto provided in the lead are not sourced there or anywhere else and should be sourced
You're right. Everything has a source now.
  • "and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout." - ideally we should be sourcing this major claim to something better than a commission apparently run by the city to show how great the city is
Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.
  • Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.
  • "The city's reputation for high quality of life notwithstanding," - I'm not seeing this general claim made directly in the body; for a statement as strong as this it should be worked into the body of the article and not just the lead
Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.
  • File:Log Drivers-by Michael Nowack-1881.jpg - Buidhe can explain this better than me but the licensing isn't as straightforward as it would seem here. The image may be from 1881, but we'd need proof of when it was first published because theoretically it could still be under copyright (the 1928 tag requires publishing by then). See Hirtle chart on Commons; I've had a painting from the 1860s rejected at a FAC or A-class image review before
Answered below to Buidhe.
 
  • File:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg - not sure on this one. The licensing claims that the copyright holder has released it, but the uploader to wikipedia doesn't seem to be the copyright holder and the file page indicates in multiple places that it would be copyright Larry Kanfer photography 2003. The original source link appears to be gone forever, so it may be better simply to replace this with another image of the lake. File:Minneapolis Skyline (234868322).jpg maybe?
OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.
  • Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look back later, but this is it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when the 1881 photograph was published it could still be under copyright.
The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) claims its website would be done last summer. I called them a few months ago and there is no recourse except to wait for them. ("Access to Collections online is temporarily unavailable for remote and in-person researchers.") We know that Michael Nowack, the photographer, published something in 1881 that MNHS states is public domain. I can't speak for the log drivers.
  • Removed until MNHS comes back online.
Another issue I've noticed in excessively long sections such as "Lumber, waterpower, and flour milling" and single sentence paragraph in the demography section. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That single sentence was to differentiate between people from India who appeared in close proximity to American Indian reservations. Turns out that fixing chrono order was what we needed.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you recheck the what the source said on "In 1871, of the thirteen mills sawing lumber in St. Anthony, eight ran on water power and five ran on steam turbines" I believe that the steam turbine was not invented until 1884 and didn't come into real use until the 1900's. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. From page 146 of Agnes Larson's The White Pine Industry in Minnesota, A History: In 1871 thirteen mills were cutting lumber at St. Anthony Falls, giving employment to 831 people. Of those thirteen mills, eight were run by water power and five by steam turbine. The author mentions a "first-class" steam powered sawmill owned by Hersey, Staples and Company in Stillwater, Minnesota built in 1854 (page 17). Around there she writes, "Steam was beginning to come into its own." Her source is a book I've never seen: Hotchkiss, History of Lumber and Forest Industry of Northwest, p. 525, that is unfortunately not in the Internet Archive as far as I can see. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HathiTrust has a copy here. It appears Wikipedia's article on steam turbines needs updating, no? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. I double-checked another book The Falls of Saint Anthony by Lucile Kane. She says on page 108 that Another factor which contributed to the decline of sawmilling at the falls was steam power. As early as the 1850s and 1860s seven steam mills had operated at different times in the falls district. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the author made an error and should have said steam power or steam engines rather than steam turbines. I.E steam engines / steam power was prevalent then, steam turbines were still in future. But if the source said it, that's good enough from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the article to say "steam power". Thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review

As the article is getting close to Keep territory, it may be helpful to scrutinize the lead more closely. Does it truly summarize the high points? At WP:TFA, would the lead provide the material that would be highlighted in a blurb? Examples I suggest addressing

As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States.
Too much detail for the lead, and not really worthy of being the second line in the lead. I suggest removing the 46-th most bit to the body, and only mentioning in the lead "With a 2020 population of 429,954, it is the largest city in Minnesota."
Extra detail removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is tangled with nine mentions of Minneapolis and Minnesota; I suggest that Dying might find a way to smooth this out.
Hi. The lead was constructed for the most part here and here by a sockpuppet farm. I threw up my hands some time ago but am happy to help if I can. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minneapolis has its origins as the 19th century lumber and flour milling capitals of the world, and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout -->
Minneapolis was the 19th-century lumber and flour milling capital of the world and has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century.
Fixed.
waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River --> on the Mississippi River
Fixed.
on a section of land north of Fort Snelling.
Fixed.
Its growth is attributed. --> its growth was ? In the 19th century ?? Early growth was ??
Fixed.
metropolis located far from competing neighbors,[15] Minneapolis is the birthplace of General Mills, the Pillsbury brand, and the Target Corporation. ... No relationship between these two clauses
Fixed.

Part done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Dying, well-versed in fine-tuning leads towards writing the TFA blurb, will have a look and lend a hand. I think the lead could be much better. First pass only, will continue, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue my review on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dying

thanks for the ping and praise, SandyGeorgia! SusanLesch, this will admittedly be the first time i contribute to either fac or far, so please let me know if there is anything i am doing incorrectly or if you have any suggestions for improvement.
Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

offhand, three things about this lead jump out at me.

  • a decent number of statements appear to have been made as if minneapolis has something to prove. i think, to a neutral reader, this makes the city less impressive than it really is.
Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.
  • the lead seems to be a lot longer than those of comparable articles. because minneapolis is 46th on the list of u.s. cities by population, i also specifically looked at the articles for oakland (45th) and tulsa (47th), and both of them have leads that are roughly 20–30% shorter, even though they have longer article bodies.
Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles (Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.
  • considering that minneapolis has recently been highly prominent in world news due to an incident that sparked a worldwide protest movement, it seems strange that this only seems to be referenced obliquely in the lead. (full disclosure: i started a few of the articles related to the protests.) for comparison, the article leads for the cities of wuhan, beirut, and mariupol all not only explicitly mention the unfortunate events that have recently brought them international attention, but also provide links to articles that cover the events in further depth.
I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

would you prefer to address these points before i perform a more in-depth copyedit? dying (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's enough to start. Good to meet you, Dying. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Cleveland is the better example for comparison for the direction of the lead; it's a continuously maintained FA, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using non-FAs for guidance. SusanLesch are you comfortable then with having dying work directly on the lead? I see good room for reduction in the third paragraph and fifth (current city appointments are also recentism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. -15:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Grand; dying, one way to make work at FAR easier on other reviewers and the Coords who have to close is to start a sub-section on the talk page of this FAR, as you can see I've done. Then, when you're done, you can summarize back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on SandyGeorgia's review on talk in my sandbox. Making progress every day. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia and Dying: Done with SandyGeorgia's review. A couple questions and a note are marked. Dying, you could do our lead now if you can find the time. Sandy said she's busy elsewhere until at least Friday. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Climate -- the new growing zone map (https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/) has the entire city and much of the surrounding suburbs in zone 5a now. Can someone make this change?

Done. Thank you, Sanctacruce21. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, my understanding is that Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia's reviews are done (both were lengthy, detailed reviews). Dying had a machine failure so the lead remains about the same, but they were able to write a TFA blurb (on talk). I made a couple more improvements to the article and ran IABot last week. Generally we had no status change since November. A couple questions are outstanding on Sandy's review (on talk). Is anyone available to !vote keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look but have no idea when I can get to it. I just moved last weekend; I'm not sure which box my primary laptop is in and we don't have reliable internet access set up yet. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working our polls for the presidential primary in the next two weeks and turn into a pumpkin tomorrow until March 7. In the meantime I tried to recruit a weather expert at the WikiProject. (Outdated climate data seems to be a hurdle with lots of old FAs.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing, again apologies for the dely
" renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint" - was this literally named "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua" as the text suggests or should this just be "Falls of St. Anthony" using a piped link for St. Anthony?
"After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862" - this seems more relevant to an article on either the University of MN or to some other article than one about the City of Minneapolis
  • Hog Farm, I don't understand. Why remove this? The main campus of the U of MN is in Minneapolis (as the lead says). It's enormous and contributes to the local economy. I found this morning: The university owns 30% of the city's publicly-owned land (about 84 acres) that is zoned for industrial uses (page 34). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only major concerns I had with the early history material as rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update to anyone worried about the climate box, I updated the data so it goes back to 1873, with a note explaining where the weather station is. I also removed some unnecessary parts of the table that aren't accessible in the NOWData source. Thanks SusanLesch (talk · contribs) for reaching out to the weather WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worked out on Minneapolis talk page. I was mistaken that 2020 climate normals are outdated. Next update will be 2030. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dying and all, I wrote a new lead for discussion on the Minneapolis talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is done. My understanding is that's the last step of FAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

edit

Comments after a quick skim:

  • "Minneapolis has cold, snowy winters and hot, humid summers, as is typical in a continental climate. The difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is 58.1 °F (32.3 °C)." Needs a citation, especially for the first half of this sentence.
Good catch. I asked for help in WikiProject Weather.
  • I don't think the charity section is needed: the first paragraph can be merged into another section if it is to be kept, but the sentence about Alight seems promotional for the charity and I'm unsure why this is highlighted when there are probably several other charities in the Minneapolis area.
Removed, although I don't know of any other Minneapolis charity of Alight's proportions.
  • I think the "Annual events" section can be redistributed to other sections. For example, the information about the marathon can be in the sports section, and the Fringe Festival can be in the Arts section.
I did this reluctantly because WP:USCITIES recommends a separate section for recurring events. I removed the section, and as you suggest, distributed the most important six or so, and omitted about ten. It looks all right.
  • "Krista Tippett, awarded a Peabody and the National Humanities Medal, produced the On Being project from her Minneapolis studio." This feels like trivia and should either be expanded upon, incorporated somewhere else, or removed.
Removed.
  • I suggest reworking the "Transportation" section as there are lots of short paragraphs at the end.
Done.
  • The George Floyd information seems bloated and off-topic for the "Government" section. I suggest that much of this information be moved to "History" and trimmed.
Because oversight of both consent decrees was approved in February, I was able to cut a whole paragraph. Sorry I must push back on your comments. Mr. Floyd is not off topic, nor does it all belong in History. His death profoundly affected the police force for at least the last four years and it will in the coming four to ten years.
I think Floyd is a significant event that needs to be mentioned in this article. When I skimmed through the article I saw the multiple paragraphs on this subject in the Government section and gave it a thorough read, which is what I used to base my opinion on. There was a lot of information in this section about police reform, which surprised me because usually government sections for cities concern the structure of their municipal government, who their elected representatives are, and significant changes to these structures. While the operation of the police could be part of this section, I am unsure if it should have the amount of space that it does in this section.
Furthermore, Floyd is a significant event in this city's history, but the city's history is hundreds or thousands of years old, and I'm concerned that there might be a recency bias to include this much information on the topic in this area of the article. Los Angeles has one sentence about Rodney King, though it probably needs to be expanded. New York City has a couple of sentences, mostly in its history section, about 9/11 and its aftereffects. As of posting this comment, this article has two significant paragraphs about Floyd: one in the history section and one in government. Considering the length of the article, I would ask that editors consider if that information would be better on daughter articles and if it can be summarised even more in this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have only one sentence about Mr. Floyd in Government, followed by crime statistics and the consent decree.
  • "The Indigenous Dakota people believed in the Great Spirit, and were surprised that not all European settlers were religious." This feels like trivia and I think it can be removed.
Removed.
  • This is a long article. While this is to be expected with an article about a city, I think work can be done to reduce the number of words by moving information to other locations and removing promotional language throughout. I suggest that a subject-matter expert do a readthrough to see what can be moved.
Good idea. Asked editors in WikiProject Minnesota.
  • I added alt text to some of the images.
Thank you.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you very much for your review. Every point you raised is attended to above, with the exception of the two weather citations that I deferred to the WikiProject. You were right, the Floyd paragraph in History has been trimmed. Waiting for help, I made about 6K of article cuts but stopped after this one hurt. It might have done damage (by omitting hydroelectricity and revitalization of the riverfront).
Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting prose is tough but I think it's for the best, as it helps with load times and makes it more likely that the article will be read by our readers. I hope you will consider moving this information to a daughter article so that the sources are not lost, especially information in the history section. Are you ready for me to take another skim through the article? Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'll move that chunk to History of Minneapolis. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a closer read, so this will take more time. I am performing a copyedit while I go, so feel free to revert and discuss below anything I change.
  • " After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862." When reading this sentence, it seemed too specific for what the rest of the paragraph was saying. Why is information about the university here?
The year, 1862, is in chrono order. Removed this.
Restored it. Do you agree it works better in the Education section?
  • "In 1855 with a charter from the legislature, Steele and associates opened the first bridge across the Mississippi; the toll bridge cost pedestrians three cents" Why is this important for the history of the city, or can it be removed?
Removed.
  • "1989 Minnesota Archaeological Society analysis of the Minneapolis riverfront describes the use of water power in Minneapolis between 1880 and 1930 as "the greatest direct-drive waterpower center the world has ever seen." This feels more like commentary and less like history, so I think it can be removed to decrease the wordcount here.
Removed.
  • "Minneapolis earned the nickname "Mill City."" This comes before the information about the mills. If the mills gave the city its nickname, I suggest putting this afterwards, adding information about when the nickname was used, and stating that the mills gave the city this nickname.
Sourced. Kept as part of intro.
Cited founding of Washburn-Crosby and General Mills.
  • I don't think the first paragraph of the "Other industries develop" section is necessary, as the information is intended to be humorous, not factual, or the information is present later in the article.
Removed the whole paragraph.

Those are my thoughts for now. Stopping at "Other industries develop" and hope to continue later. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far. One question above for you. (I think the university is too big to ignore that its land was more or less stolen.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:
  • There are a lot of businesses listed in "Other industries develop". This section struggles to connect the businesses with the history of the city: how did these businesses affect the city? Also, lots of the information is cited to the company's website. Do secondary sources think these businesses are notable to Minneapolis's history? If not, they should be removed.
Onan has one company citation, however Onan's notability is cited to Stipanovich. (There aren't "lots of" these, only one.)
  • The first paragraph of "Social tension" seems to be a list of facts, with no cohesion to it.
You removed the topic sentence of that paragraph.
Interestingly you seem to remove topic sentences and transitional sentences. Even though that kind of edit logically cuts the word count, I prefer to have the breathers. They're like asides that don't require hard thought.
I undid deletions of topic sentences twice in History. Topic sentences are needed! They are designed to unite "a list of facts, with no cohesion". I added one topic sentence "Disparate events defined the late 20th century." which will function once as a catch-all.
  • I think the second paragraph, talking about the Black population of the city, might be better in the demographics section.
It's about any non-White race (not only the Black population). Agree this can be done. Still I wonder if having the topic here helps the reader understand Structural racism which now comes first. Does it work in the new spot?
  • The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline. In addition, subsections within the History section are also divided by theme or just randomly placed in a new paragraph. This makes the section difficult to read and hard to find information, especially in the later parts of the section. Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources. I suggest that this whole section be re-written and organised chronologically. This will greatly help with reducing the amount of text in this article. For an example of how a history section of a city can be organised, take a look at Hamilton, Ontario.
  • Disagree with what you say here. No low-quality sources or non-notable information was added. If anything the quality of sources has improved since 2007. The Works cited section is new.
  • The entire History section is already in close-to-strict chronological order, proceeding from 1000 A.D. to 2020. Yes, there are a few exceptions, likely to be found at the end of a section to bring that topic up to the present day. (See note below about removing everything after Mr. Floyd.)
  • Ways to solve what you're finding:
  • One, omit or footnote information that doesn't strictly follow a timeline, we hope reducing work for the reader. (For example, remove "The city's first commercial sawmill was built in 1848, and the first gristmill in 1849.")
  • Second, rewrite to eliminate awkward jumps in the timeline (for example, drop the first date: "In 1886, businessman George D. Munsing built a textile business called Munsingwear to sell wool underwear covered in silk. The business lasted a century and in 1923 it was the world's largest manufacturer of underwear.").
  • Third, the Structural racism section is undated and could be moved away.

Those are my thoughts. Finished with the history, will move on to other sections later. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My husband and I are sick with the flu (not COVID). I'll try to work at your other comments ASAP. Hamilton history looks nice! Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I was ticked off yesterday at the clearcut approach, but seeing that helps me understand. Thanks for your review. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, can you please sign off on the 3-point plan above? Two editors are waiting to execute it. (I am back 80+ percent.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I think this is good! Most of the information is useful and has great sources, but would be better in other sections or articles. Examples include: the info about businesses, which can move to Economy, and the demographics information can go to the Demographics section. I look forward to reading through this when it is complete. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's possible to move the businesses to Economy where they'd stand out as WP:UNDUE, and we'd have to add origin stories for Target Corp, Ameriprise, Thrivent. The Economy section is better as it is—high level. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Z1720, the History section is down from 7000 to 4500 words. Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the History section. Are we good, Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
📆

@Z1720: Thank you for your review. I'm not sure that we have your full attention. Some of your comments seem like guesses or just wrong. "Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources.", "The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline.", "lots of the information is cited to the company's website" Nearly a year went by since I brought this to FAR, Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, however, a whole month disappeared since you last posted. This article deserves better. It meets all Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it is thoroughly researched with a stunning new Works cited section, not to mention that SandyGeorgia helped its development and it passed Hog Farm's painstaking review. I respect that you are busy improving the encyclopedia—but my time has value, too. Are you ready to close this out and declare keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

edit

Trying to consolidate keep !votes. Postponing seems more and more pointless.

  • SandyGeorgia, I'd like to see all your work bear fruit. Can you !vote to keep today? Thank you for questioning claims over the years.
  • Hog Farm, my teacher on MOS:PEACOCK, declared keep a month ago. Language was toned down throughout.
  • Buidhe, thank you for your image review. Do you think it is ever safe to assume a daguerreotype from the 1850s is public domain? If you don't, I will remove it. Pending copyright information from the Minnesota Historical Society (which they seem to have buried), we removed a log jam from 1881. Can you sign off on this article?

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a solid keep too. I gave the prose a real run through the wringer, and SL fixed up even the pickiest of bits. I checked many source during the review, including some random spot checks, and all issues (there were few) have been addressed. Great work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, this is probably ready for your review when you're next doing FAR coord work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding my keep !vote to make three. Thank you to the reviewers whose suggestions stand out. Thanks to Sandy for many years of work. Special thanks to the coordinators for their unexpected patience—we've gone over a year. Made a final pass for loose ends and thanks to FFF, this one looks to be in apple-pie order. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FFFeedback

edit
  1. In §Health care, it would be worth all the downsides of passive voice to start the first sentence with "The city is served by ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can the list of hospitals be cut down? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Readers will take "Cardiac surgery was developed ..." to mean that such surgeries were first done in Minneapolis. I think it's worth spending some words to clarify what exactly was accomplished. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Our article on Hennepin County Medical Center suggests that's the name for the hospital, with Hennepin Healthcare being the name for the org that administers it. Whatever we land on, there should be consistency between the prose and the caption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much attention given to alt names for Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should consistently use either "percent" or "%" in prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In §Transportation, why the about in "about six bus rapid transit (BRT) lines"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The part about scooters/bikes needs an update. A glance at this source suggests they were available again in 2024 and implies they were available in 2023. This was the first source that came up, and a better one may be available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It seems like the article trends toward the use of the serial (Oxford) comma. I've added it in a few places where it was missing, but a full pass is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I prefer the serial comma and thank you for the corrections. One more comma quirk: I generally follow the rule that years in numerals are followed by a comma. An example here: Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867, and in 1872, it merged with St. Anthony. Doing a comma check pass now. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've corrected a couple comma errors, where one was erroneously included to separate the parts of a complex predicate. Needs a full pass. I can help with this and the above item if you want me to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Compound adjectives like "15th largest" should be hyphenated. Current usage is mixed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Back in §Health care, "the university's Variety Club Heart Hospital": which university? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Since we go a bit into the history of U of M, mentioning the year of establishment would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "College rankings for 2023 place the school in the range of 44th (2024) to 195th for academics worldwide": the 2023 and 2024 seem to conflict. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Looks like new rankings are available from U.S. News & World Report. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "the state constitution included the provision: regents are in control": MOS:COLON would suggest against this sort of colon use. Replacement with a "that" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Act of 1862" is unclear. I think maybe we mean "revived under the Morrill Act of 1862 using land taken from the Dakota people"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, how are things looking here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still reviewing at the FAR talk page, and SL has (of course) been responsive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2024 (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) 4:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [5].

Poppy Meadow

edit
Notified: M.Mario, WikiProject EastEnders, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Soap Operas

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article is not looking in good shape rn. Many poor-quality sources are being used, including unreliable ones like Metro. For ex. ref 1, 3, 5, 6?, 7, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 34 and 37 (dead sources), 39, 43 (also dead), some at 46, 48, 51, 58, 59, 64 and 65. Aside from those sourcing issues, the Storylines section wasn't fully sourced and the quote boxes seem odd including the image sandwich. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - per the storylines guidelines at WP:SOAPS and per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, the storyline sections do not need sourcing, as watching the show acts as a source, so that should not be an issue.
I will have a look to see if any of the refs can be replaced. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I first looked at this fleetingly and thought maybe it was a keep—given the subject matter is utterly trivial, I wouldn't expect the sources to be high quality. Tabloids and TV magazines are going to be the highest-quality sources available for this type of content. However, having read in depth the lead and first three paragraphs, I can't bear to read any further. While disinterest in the content explains part of my lack of engagement, I also feel that the prose itself is not engaging. There are so many quotations and within text attributions that the overall effect is somewhat tedious. While the lead states that critics found the character's introduction "bizarre and utterly irrelevant", this quote is not found in the article body or the source given at the end of that sentence. This is because the mention in the article body and the original citation were removed during a clean-up of deprecated sources. Citations to the Daily Star remain, although the Daily Star was deprecated in a 2020 RfC (after the article's promotion). Similarly Metro was deprecated in 2022. The article would, therefore, appear to fail criteria 1a (engaging prose) and 1c (sourcing). DrKay (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - in addition, this article repeatedly cites Daily Mirror, which probably doesn't meet the high-quality RS standard for FAC. And yes, I know that this is likely the best sourcing available for this topic, but 1) if the corpus sourcing available for a topic does not meet the FA standards the answer is to not have that article subject as a FA, not lower the FA standards and 2) if information can only be supported by crappy tabloid sources, we really should be thinking twice about if that information belongs in an encyclopedia. Hog Farm Talk 21:41, 25 October 2024 (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) 14:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [6].

Restoration of the Everglades

edit
Notified: Moni3, WP Miami, WP Florida, WP Environment, noticed in November 2022

Review section

edit

This 2008 FA promotion has fallen out of date. For instance, "Early tests by the Army Corps of Engineers revealed this method reduced phosphorus levels from 80 ppb to 10 ppb.[42] The STAs are intended to treat water until the phosphorus levels are low enough to be released into the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge or other WCAs." partially sourced to a 2003 document and the rest unsourced, estimates of panther counts from 2008, etc. The article discusses the NRC's 2008 report on the restoration of the Everglades, but an eight biennial review was released in 2021. Updates are needed here. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. This is the first of my FAs that have appeared at FAR.
You found a source, Hog Farm, why not update the article? Moni3 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have the familiarity with the subject matter to feel confident being able to do the needed updates at a FA-level. But it's clear that this has not been maintained to a FA-level, either. There's an expectation that for an article to remain featured, it needs to stay at that level of quality. I wouldn't expect a reviewer at my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Lake Providence/archive1) to make all of the changes they identify should be made. It likewise shouldn't fall on other editors to do the needed maintenance for FAs on subjects that they don't have the needed heavy familiarity with the subject matter and available sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 19:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It likewise shouldn't fall on other editors to do the needed maintenance for FAs on subjects that they don't have the needed heavy familiarity with the subject matter and available sourcing.
It absolutely should! I wasn't an expert before I started. I visited Everglades National Park like any other pleb in 2007 and the article sucked, so I added some material to it. Other articles didn't exist so, you know, I wrote them. I'm still not an expert. I just read stuff and summarized it. That's pretty much what Wikipedia is about. The logical end of your view is article ownership, also gatekeeping editors to make sure they're experts before editing. Someone will have to take over this article. This torch is burning my fucking arm off, please take it.
You found one source, here's some more:
https://www.evergladesrestoration.gov/
https://conservancy.org/everglades-restoration/
https://www.saj.usace.army.mil/WERP/
A few articles from the Miami Herald or Sun Sentinel would probably be beneficial to see if they think the government is lying. Not that they ever have in the past. I don't have access to those anymore.
This looks like an interesting book: Amy Green, Moving Water: The Everglades and Big Sugar
I believe in you. Not just you, Hog Farm. All you fine people. Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get some familiarity with the sourcing over the next few weeks. The Vicksburg project is my wiki priority right now (there's some parallels with it and this Everglades project I think). I was under the impression when I nominated this for FAR that work was going to become less busy for me soon, but my employer had other plans it turns out. Hog Farm Talk 00:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moni3: You stated above, "Congratulations. This is the first of my FAs that have appeared at FAR." Articles do not have to be featured articles, and no editor has to fix an article. If Hog Farm cares about an article retaining its featured status, they are welcome to improve it. If you care about "your" article retaining its featured status, then you have to address the concerns outlined above. It is not a reviewer's job to fix an article if they do not want to. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering, Z1720. You can start here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d5179e7e42ca1000117872f/t/63c6ebca18925b391bf71009/1673980894394/CISRERP+Report+IX.pdf It's pretty long and detailed but it has a highlights if you want or need:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d5179e7e42ca1000117872f/t/63bf0618b6021629ccdf2f53/1673463326027/CISRERP+Report-Highlights__Everglades-IX__FINAL.pdf
The best place to start would be to make a sandbox and summarize what you read. Cite it, etc. Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moni3: I do not have the expertise, time, nor desire to work on this article. I am happy to provide comments once editors think this is ready for a re-review. Z1720 (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already made this comment, but again, I am not an expert. I simply read the sources and summarized them. I never understood how anyone saw not being an expert as an insurmountable obstacle to writing an article.
Anyway, you won't assist despite your deep concern. What a shame. I'll miss our discussions here, but feel free to carry on at my talk page as I guess this space should be restricted to business. Moni3 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC No major edits to the article since its listing at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no major edits. The major editor (Moni3) has also shown that they do not want to fix the article. Also, Moni3, in response to: "I started. I visited Everglades National Park like any other pleb in 2007 and the article sucked, so I added some material to it", the thing is you chose to edit the article, unlike here, where the FAR initiator (in this case, Hog Farm) realised it did not meet FA criteria and brought it here. Two simply different things. Unfortunately, this article in its current state does not meet FA criteria, and will be seeing its demotion soon unless an editor decides they actually want to do this. 750h+ 08:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Currency. 18:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [7].

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

edit
Notified: User talk:HAL333, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

edit

Issues were raised under WP:FARGIVEN back in 2021 and largely seem unaddressed. Main concerns are citation style and source integrity.

  • Lack of sourcing in "Cast" section.
  • "Accolades" table is extremely huge and indiscriminate, and laden with [citation needed] tags.
  • Unreferenced sections in "20th anniversary version".
  • Inconsistent ref formatting:
    • Reference 14 (Den of Geek) is missing publisher
    • Reference 16 (Production notes DVD booklet) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
    • Reference 28 (The Reunion DVD) is incomplete, and I'm not sure if it's usable as a source
    • Reference 37 (Inside the Actors Studio) is incomplete
    • Reference 45 (Billboard) is incomplete
    • Reference 52 (The New Yorker) needs a page number
    • Lots of other sources are horribly formatted: missing publishers, inconsistent formatting with other sources, etc. To keep this from being an overly tedious list, I'm not going to include every last one.
  • What makes the following references reliable sources?
    • Reference 24 (Rediscover the 80s)
    • Reference 36 (Movie Locations)
    • Reference 81 (an advertisement)
    • Reference 84 (ET Kuwahara); citation is also incomplete
  • Reference 177 (Golden News) is a permanent dead link.

I checked mostly for sourcing issues, so I haven't done much digging on prose quality.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC I believe that it could rely much more on high-quality books: as it is, specific page numbers are not really given for book citations. There are, for instance, 8 unique references that refer to the page range 323–38. There are also some serious issues with weight and balance. For instance, the "Short film sequel" (which is just an Xfinity ad) is given a lengthy four paragaphs. The prose is rough in many places, especially the accolades section, which is effectively an unreadable stream of consciousness: compare that section to the FA The Dark Knight's. I also believe it to not be comprehensive: for instance, it doesn't mention the Michael Jackson tie-in song "Someone in the Dark" and the ensuing legal fiasco with the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial soundtrack album. ~ HAL333 00:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The book reference request is likely to require more time than what is typically allotted for the FAR stage. I agree that more precision is probably preferred, but I'm not so sure that's a requirement to maintain FA status. As for prose, I hope to address that, but that too will be a challenge. There are some NPOV concerns for sure.
    Pinging Darkwarriorblake, who guided The Dark Knight and a few film articles to FA status in the past couple years to see if he is able to assist. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Not sure this one's as bad as it may seem on the surface.
  1. The Cast section should be fine for credited roles per MOS:FILMCAST, as long as the descriptions are very basic. It will need citations for non-credited roles.
  2. The Accolades table is likely UNDUE for its length. The one at The Fifth Element#Accolades is about as long as they get for FAs before they get moved to their own list article. Saving Private Ryan#Accolades doesn't even have one. It was a recent addition at E.T., added by HM2021 in this 2022 edit, so perhaps that editor has a comment, but I suggest moving it to the talk page for now or removing altogether (it can always be retrieved from history).
  3. 20th Anniversary section: Should be able to compare this to the promoted version of the article and weed out unnecessary details quickly, especially anything we can't find sources for.
  4. Inconsistent refs: I haven't evaluated these, but I'm sure we can take some time to repair/remove these as needed. There may be some active WP:FILM members willing to jump in and help.
  5. Prose: That's my specialty. I can find some time over the next week to clean this up.
Some good information has been added over the years, but I think if we use the promoted version as a reference and compare it to the current revision, we should be able to get this article back in order within a reasonable amount of time. If not, then we look at moving to FARC. I don't think we need to abruptly decide that just yet, however. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I don't believe this is beyond salvaging, reference issue can be fixed fairly easily.

  • The plot needs trimming. I am willing to look at this though I'll have to rewatch the film as I haven't seen it since I was probably 5.
  • The image of Kennedy needs removing, the caption underneath it is claiming something not sourced in the article and, frankly, an image of the writer, Melissa Mathison, should be there over a producer.
  • Definitely in need of overall uplifting to modern standards.

I don't think it's a trainwreck, and if the issue was raised previously I understand complaints that it wasn't actioned, so I would suggest agreeing a reasonable timescale to rectify the issues or demote it. I recommend this as it's easier to uplift it and fix issues now, than it is to re-nominate it and take up reviewer time. I wouldbe willing to give GoneIn60 the time to do what needs doing if they are willingm with help from others where possible. I would be willing to help though my time wouldbe more limited. The film is 42 years old now as well so there will be a load of 40th anniversary retrospectives to draw on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dwb! I'll have some time to fix references, clean up prose, and remove unsourced junk (that I can't find sources for). I'll get started in the next day or two. Perhaps between the two of us, we can get it back to decent form, but as for adding newer content that's been published in the past decade or so and getting it back to the highest possible standard, not sure we'll have enough time to accomplish that, as I too will be slightly limited on time. This isn't a film I've watched since the early 2000s with my kids.
Guess we can make an attempt and see where that lands us. Appreciate your help either way! GoneIn60 (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [8].

Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve

edit
Notified: Mav, Lbreid, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject United States, 2024-02-14

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article. The history section stops at 2017, so there would need to be a search for more recent events to see if there is anything to add. "Henderson, Paul (1986)" and "United States Geological Survey" are listed in the bibliography but are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article does need a review, but I'm skeptical that problems are that severe here. A quick check of page size for now vs. the promoted version suggests that very little about the text size has changed, so I rather doubt that much is actually unreferenced. Is there reason to believe something very significant happened since 2017? The idea that things have been quiet seems entirely reasonable to me, there's no need to include every stray mention in a news article. The two general references are trivial complaints - general references as a style are discouraged but this was promoted in 2005. I'm not necessarily saying this is an easy keep, but the reasoning is different - the problem isn't really an occasional stray line of uncited text, the problem is that standards have risen since 2005-2008 and this might not be a comprehensive enough citing of the best sources. SnowFire (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely I have the time to do this, I'm afraid. SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC) [9].

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

edit
Notified: WikiProject Video games, Gary

Review section

edit

This featured article from 2008 has strayed far from the criteria and quality that is expected from a featured article on this site. I pointed out some issues back in May regarding this article, but they have gone unnoticed and I believe that it's time for this article to be reassessed. To summarize the main issues with this article:

  • Verification issues, such as an orange cleanup banner and numerous citation needed tags in the Gameplay section (which has two unsourced paragraphs), a "not verified in body" tag in the lead. There's also an unreliable source tag in the Development section. So therefore, with the gameplay section alone, the article fails criteria 1c.
  • Lack of detail regarding the games legacy on the first-person shooter genre as well as the Call of Duty series. Considering that this is undoubtedly the most important game in the franchise and quite possibly one of the most important first-person shooter games ever made, this makes the article possibly fail criteria 1b.
  • Extremely lackluster reception section further backed up by a "needs expansion" banner. The reception towards the game's relatively insignificant Wii port is given just as much weight as literally every other aspect of the game. There's also a lack of reviews actually used. This is also a failure of criteria 1b, and to a lesser extent criteria 1d on the grounds of not being able to accurately represent all opinions related to the game in a cohesive manner.
  • Additional minor issues such as the detail of the game's age ratings, which is a violation of the manual of style for writing about video games, the lack of an explanation for what a first-person shooter is (which wouldn't hurt due to this games significance, see what Doom does), and a few other minor writing issues like one-sentence paragraphs.

If a cleanup effort to save this article begins, I might be willing to help out in certain areas where I can, as I love this game and would hate to see it lose its status. But at present, it's a clear failure of the featured article criteria and warrants reassessment regardless. λ NegativeMP1 03:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [10].

Heavy metal (elements)

edit
Notified: Chemistry WikiProject, Physics WikiProject

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because during checking the sources a month ago, I found 14 that failed verification. This ranged from truncated quotes to inappropriate use of sources to support points that they don't make. I also found numerous obvious factual errors. At about the same time Johnjbarton (talk · contribs) also found a significant number of errors and irrelevant information; everything can be found in the edit history or in main page tags. As such it fails GA 2b, 3b, 4 and perhaps others. I posted on the talk page that I was considering a GAR, and the original FA nominator responded with comments that violate the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Until these major issues are resolved not only does it not merit FA status, it does not merit GA.

I nominated this going straight to GAR, since I cannot see how clear fails of multiple GA criteria warrant consideration for a FA. On procedural grounds it was bounced out of that (see talk page). In terms of the FA criteria it fails 1b and 1c, perhaps 1d and @Johnjbarton has argued that it also fails 4 (which I agree with).

Courtesy Ping of FAR for prior editors@Double sharp, Sandbh, Dustfreeworld, Graeme Bartlett, R8R, Johnbod, Edwininlondon, YBG, Smokefoot, SchroCat, Nergaal, Vanamonde93, and Jimfbleak:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)


This is my way of getting a reply button Johnjbarton (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Heavy metal (elements) is not Wikipedia's very best work.
  • 1a. Prose is list-oriented, not engaging. Some non-reference footnotes contradict the main content.
  • 1b. The topic is confusingly defined, using different definitions in different parts of the article.
  • 1c. some of the references do not verify
  • 1e. unstable. I've tried to make improvements.
  • 4. Far too long, wandering over various possible definitions of the topic without clarity, mostly resorting to laundry list of factoids about a list of elements.
The definition of the article topic is controversial in the source literature. To avoid a muddle we need to face this reality with either a clear and singular chosen definition or a discussion of each option. The article attempts to do both, and cannot succeed that way. Then the problems are compounded by enumerating details about particular elements in a list that no one agrees upon. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am an inorganic chemist, an old one who has taught inorganic often. I have rarely heard the term "heavy metal" (at least ourside of the music world) discussed by chemists.
    • "Today's lecture is about Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
    • "The national award for Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
    • "The journal Heavy Metal Chemistry"?
    • "This research group/center/grant is focused on heavy metals"?
  • I thought it might be some sort of physicsy jargon, but Greenwood and Earnshaw use the term, often referring to Pb. The main problem is that the "heavy metal" is ill-defined. Consequently, the article (like metalloid) becomes a forum for WP:SYNTHESIS decorated with eye-candy. The term is used in toxicology and environmental fields. But, like metalloid, this article will likely attract accolades from nonpractioners.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smokefoot: While I certainly agree with your take on the topic, I believe the issue under discussion here is a much narrower one: should the article Heavy metal (elements) be listed as one of Wikipedia's very best articles? Maybe we should delete the article, but as you say there are references that use the term. Rather we are just focused here on the issue of quality control. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully it is not considered to be one of Wikipedia's best or even good article. But the way that these nominations work is that all sorts of wannabe chemists will be impressed by technical jargon and fancy pictures. The specific aspect that worries me is the synthesis aspect. I think that Wikipedia would be better off without this thing. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an orange banner at the top of the page for failed verifications, and some failed verification tags. Have these been resolved? Were the citations of concerns checked in a previous spot check? Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most (more detail in the article Talk page) have not been resolved; a few have either by correcting or deleting claims. There are also many obscure sources which are unavailable so have not been checked. Based upon the failure rate so far I expect a significant number of those to fail verification.
From what I can see in the history no spot check was ever done, the article went directly to FAR and there was never a GAR (where reference spot checking is standard). Ldm1954 (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I just did a single source spot check, picking ref [97] [124] which turned out to be an available PhD thesis. The source does not support what is claimed in the text, so I added another {{failed verification}}. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I prefer that we change the status back to B from FA; it seems this article never was a WP:GA, it skipped that step. I think it will then be less controversial to do the major rewrite that will be required to replace all the unverified citations and correct the coverage. The large number of unverified sources (including too many that say something quite different from what the text claims) is disturbing, as I stated in the original nomination. The issue of coverage which both Johnjbarton and Smokefoot describe is also something where it will be simpler (IMO) to reach consensus for with a B level article. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no one has addressed the verification concerns. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2024 (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) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC) [11].

Anarky

edit
Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Anarchism, WikiProject Science Fiction, Cast, WikiProject Fictional characters

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because...This old FA has a sourcing and other type of issues. It appears to be using like too many primary sources of low quality (like Newsrama), dead sources like ref 12, too many Valnet sources like Comicbook.com, plenty of blogs, and plenty of unreliable sources such as Gameranx. The examples of possibly low-quality sources (I did not mention primary sources or comicbook.com) are refs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 23, 32, 36, and 37. 42, 44? , 45? 95, 102, 103? 114, 120, 126 (a huge ass quote), 127, 139, 140, 141, 142, and 143. There are too many inconsistent usages of citation, such as websites, authors, and dates; some are poorly cited, and there are irrelevant quote boxes. The ref bomb is also ridiculous at reception; some of the content isn't really what you call "reception" or critic opinions, and it is just almost entirely filled with developers' quotes. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in tidying this article up might also want to have a look at Batman: Anarky, which is currently at GAR. -- asilvering (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (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_2024&oldid=1253535081"