Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2020

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [1].

Manzanar

edit
Notified: Gmatsuda, ToeFungii, WP:NRP, WP California, WP History, WP Protected areas, WP Historic sites, WP Museums, WP Milhist, WP Japan, talk page 2020-02-28

Review section

edit

This 2007 promotion is well out of compliance; lots of uncited text, short stubby paragraphs, and see talk page notification from 02-28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I concur, it would take a bunch of work to get this back to FA status. In addition, the refs are not consistently formatted and second tier sources, such as websites (as opposed to scholarly sources) are used heavily so I believe this also fails 1c and 2c. buidhe 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please make a specific list of problems, SandyGeorgia? Just glancing through the article, I'm seeing little in the way of the "short stubby paragraphs" mentioned. Please also tag any paragraphs that are missing references/sources with {{cn}} to make them easier to find. As for websites being used instead of scholarly sources, that's not a valid reason for delisting it. There are many very reliable websites out there. If you have a problem with specific websites being used, please make a specific list of those so that they can be adequately reviewed. The consistent formatting of refs is something you can fix yourself without too much trouble, Buidhe, and it would be very much appreciated. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FA criteria require the article to be "well researched" and "comprehensive". These cannot be satisfied unless the article is based on the most reliable sources available. Academic books and peer-reviewed articles are always going to be better sources than the Manzanar Committee (extensively cited), to start with. buidhe 07:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Nihonjoe; I will add a list below. I see others have added some cns. (If someone brings the article otherwise to standard, I am happy to fix citation formatting.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG review
  • External links and Further reading are concerning; they are huge. A Featured article should already be comprehensive, so that little other reading is needed. I can see that some of them are photos (eg Ansel Adams), but an examination of how many of those links are needed-- and why they aren't used as sources-- is needed.
  • Sam problem with See also; it's pretty clear a lot of those don't belong there (eg Ansel Adams-- if he does, he should be mentioned in article).
  • In popular culture is listy and could be better organized to parapraphs.
  • Notable people could be paras rather than bullets, and one wonders if Ueno is notable, why they aren't redlinked.
  • The two-sentence para on vegetation planted in 2008 could be better worked in somewhere (that section suffers from proseline).
  • American Muslim stubby para added after promotion-- is this still true, or was this a NEWSY not-news one-time thing?
  • As of 2007 sentence needs review towards updating.
  • The Township section is stubby and needs better paragraphs.
  • Use of the word "today" throughout ... needs prose adjustment or "as of".

This looks saveable, but the extensive lists at the bottom of the article will require a lot of sifting and reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nihonjoe I am having a look now (so sorry for the delay). I have removed your "fixed" templates from my post for two reasons: first, they are discouraged at FAC and FAR because those kinds of transclusions cause FAC to pass template limits, and second, because they alter my post-- I'll go through and check for all. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

In addition to those listed in the further reading section, the following sources may be helpful in improving the sourcing of the article: buidhe 22:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Burton, Jeffery F.; Farrell, Mary M. (2013). ""Life in Manzanar Where There Is a Spring Breeze": Graffiti at a World War II Japanese American Internment Camp". Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. Springer. pp. 239–269. ISBN 978-1-4614-4166-3.
  • Colborn-Roxworthy, Emily (2007). ""Manzanar, the Eyes of the World Are upon You": Performance and Archival Ambivalence at a Japanese American Internment Camp". Theatre Journal. 59 (2): 189–214. ISSN 0192-2882.
  • HAYASHI, ROBERT T. (November 2003). "Transfigured Patterns: Contesting Memories at the Manzanar National Historic Site". The Public Historian. 25 (4): 51–71. doi:10.1525/tph.2003.25.4.51.
  • Ohrn, Karen Becker (31 July 2019). "What You See Is What You Get: Dorothea Lange and Ansel Adams at Manzanar". Journalism History. 4 (1): 14–32. doi:10.1080/00947679.1977.12066836.
  • Hansen, Authur A.; Hacker, David A. (13 February 2019). "The Manzanar Riot: An Ethnic Perspective". Amerasia Journal. 2 (2): 112–157. doi:10.17953/amer.2.2.1kl24477mkk70q51.
  • Kurashige, Lon (1 August 2001). "Resistance, Collaboration, and Manzanar Protest". Pacific Historical Review. 70 (3): 387–417. doi:10.1525/phr.2001.70.3.387.
  • Ladino, Jennifer K. (1 January 2015). "Mountains, Monuments, and other Matter: Environmental Affects at Manzanar". Environmental Humanities. 6 (1): 131–157. doi:10.1215/22011919-3615925.
  • HAYS, FRANK (November 2003). "The National Park Service: Groveling Sycophant or Social Conscience: Telling the Story of Mountains, Valley, and Barbed Wire at Manzanar National Historic Site". The Public Historian. 25 (4): 73–80. doi:10.1525/tph.2003.25.4.73.
  • Beckwith, Ronald J. (2013). "Japanese-Style Ornamental Community Gardens at Manzanar Relocation Center". Prisoners of War: Archaeology, Memory, and Heritage of 19th- and 20th-Century Mass Internment. Springer. pp. 271–284. ISBN 978-1-4614-4166-3.
  • Thy Phu (2008). "The Spaces of Human Confinement: Manzanar Photography and Landscape Ideology". Journal of Asian American Studies. 11 (3): 337–371. doi:10.1353/jaas.0.0020.
  • Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty (February 2011). "Genetics Behind Barbed Wire: Masuo Kodani, Émigré Geneticists, and Wartime Genetics Research at Manzanar Relocation Center". Genetics. 187 (2): 357–366. doi:10.1534/genetics.110.126128.
  • Parks, Kimberley Roberts (January 2004). "Revisiting Manzanar: A history of Japanese American internment camps as presented in selected federal government documents 1941–2002". Journal of Government Information. 30 (5–6): 575–593. doi:10.1016/j.jgi.2004.10.003.
  • McStotts, Jennifer Cohoon (May 2007). "Internment in the Desert: A Critical Review of Manzanar National Historic Site". International Journal of Heritage Studies. 13 (3): 281–287. doi:10.1080/13527250701228239.
  • Adler, S.M. (2014) The Effect of Internment on Children and Families: Honouliuli and Manzanar. In S. Falgout and L. Nishigaya (Eds.), Breaking the Silence: Lessons of Democracy and Social Justice from the World War II Honouliuli Internment and POW Camp in Hawai ‘i, vol. 44, (178-197).

On closer examination, it appears that the article is not comprehensive either. The above sources would support a section about cultural life in the camp, at the very least. buidhe 23:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to these sources? If so, are you willing to create and populate the section you suggested? With all the COVID-19 restrictions in place, I don't have a way to use the university libraries I would normally have access to, and I don't have the $$$$ to buy all of these books. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the journal articles are open access. I could email you pdfs of most of the rest if you wikimail me. Someone at WP:RX probably has access to the Springer chapters. buidhe 23:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sent several articles. buidhe 04:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Structure

The notable people section seems a bit of a WP:COATRACK. That is, they appear to be covered in sources about the person, not about the camp. I am unable to find any quality article about a camp that follows this structure; to me, it would be much better to split off into List of inmates of Manzanar or equivalent, and integrate the notable people in text when discussing what they did at the camp or afterwards that makes them notable in connection to the camp. buidhe 00:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you created the list, so I tweaked a couple things on it and added projects on the talk page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG second review

Second review by Buidhe

edit
  • Sourcing still needs improvement.
    • We still have more than 20 references to Manzanar Committee, which should be replaced by reliable secondary sources.
    • The "Preservation and remembrance" section is mostly sourced to primary sources, advocacy groups, and news articles. We should improve the sourcing by replacing with cites to scholarly sources.
    • "Terminology" seems to be a political debate, mostly sourced to news articles and advocacy groups. We should look at scholarly souces to see the terms used there and/or their perspective on the terminology disagreement.
    • The sentence "Manzanar has been referred to as a "War Relocation Center," "relocation camp," "relocation center," "internment camp," and "concentration camp"." needs to be clarified as to which sources are referring to it as which term. Ideally, it should be sourced to a secondary source discussing the terminology.
    • I have flagged some individual sources where I saw issues.
  • I am concerned about coatracking in the "Before World War II" section. If the article is about the WWII internment camp, then background should be mostly restricted to what RS on the WWII internment camps have as relevant background, and much of the material should be moved to Manzanar, California. Per WP:OR, we should rely only on "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". It is especially suspicious to cite sources published before WWII.
  • I also do not believe the article is comprehensive; there is only 27kb readable prose and a lot of that is about events before/after the war. The sources above would support significant expansion of the "wartime" section, with more info about everyday life, culture, etc. buidhe 20:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few thoughts:
      • I don't see any reason to replace the Manzanar Committee references as long as they are providing facts. Please explain why you seem to think they are worthless as a source.
      • I can see losing most or all of the Before WWI section.
      • I find your use of "suspicious" to be ridiculous as it implies someone is trying to trick the reader. I don't see that at all in the article, and I wasn't the one who originally wrote it.
      • As for events after the war, since the work to make it a monument obviously happened after the war, of course there will be information from that time period.
      • I agree that more can be included about everyday life, but you seem to be very averse to sources like the Manzanar Committee, which is likely the only kind of source that you'll find about everyday life in the camp.
      • I'd love it if someone other than me could do more of the heavy lifting with rewriting and improving. Finding things that could be improved is relatively easy compared to expanding the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Featured articles are supposed to be based on the most reliable sources, which ensures that we are presenting factually correct information and with NPOV. I am not sure whether Manzanar Committee is reliable for facts, but they are certainly an advocacy group that prioritizes activism over scholarship. That's fine but it does limit their usefulness as a source.
  2. I didn't mean that the person who added the reference was not acting in good faith, I just meant that it is a clear example of coatracking given the current article scope and poor use of references.
  3. Currently there are just four short paragraphs about "Life in camp". I'm pretty sure there's more information just in the sources listed above. Also Internment_of_Japanese_Americans#Further reading has a list of many reliable books that probably cover Manzanar in some parts. This book, for instance, has very significant coverage of Manzanar, and it has the advantage of being fairly recent and by a high quality publisher.[1] I can send you chapter 4 "The Camp Experience" (pp. 154-202), which seems to be the most relevant. Its section on the riot is very pertinent and includes differing views on whether the rioting was caused by support for Japan.
  4. Right now I am quite busy with a bunch of other things to do, unfortunately. buidhe 21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Robinson, Greg (2009). A Tragedy of Democracy: Japanese Confinement in North America. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52012-6.
  • Close without FARC, I am satisfied, I disagree that we can't use the Committee for some sourcing, and if there are specific items that are dubious or promotional from the Committee, they should be listed. This is good enough for a Keep for me-- not the best article ever, but good enough. @Nihonjoe and Buidhe: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately I cannot support that action at this time. I took another look at the article and removed some content that seemed to be undue weight or was not about Manzanar. More worryingly, in the one reference I checked, I found failed verification content. Neither source cited says that Lange's photographs were archived because they were "critical", indeed how can a photograph criticize anything? And they do not state that her photographs *of Manzanar* were archived. I could live with the Manzanar Committee as a ref occasionally but the postwar section really should be sourced to the several high quality secondary sources available on the subject. I appreciate all the work that has gone into improving the article (and it really has improved a lot!), but I do not consider it well-researched at this time according to the FA criteria: "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". (t · c) buidhe 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Buidhe: You already removed everything you objected to, so what, exactly, are you objecting to now? And what needs to be added for it to be as "thorough and representative" as you imagine in your mind? You can't go complaining about the lack of comprehensiveness without spelling out exactly what the perceived problems are. Please be more specific. Very specific. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was perfectly clear, the postwar section needs to be sourced to high-quality, reliable secondary sources on the subject, currently many of the refs are non-independent (either US government sources or the Manzanar Committe, which is heavily involved). There is no lack of such sources and they are listed above, so I won't repeat myself. (t · c) buidhe 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Out of the 53 refs currently in the Closure and Preservation and remembrance sections, only 10 are specifically to the Manzanar Committee, and an additional 1 is to the Densho site, which might be considered too close by someone interpreting policies very narrowly. Even if the Densho ref is counted as the same as the Manzanar Committee refs, that's only about 21% of the refs used in that section. As for the US Government sources, they are pretty much all National Parks Service or referencing bills related to the topic, so those are very reliable and unlikely to be significantly biased. You seem to be in the minority here in refusing to allow these kinds of refs. The only time third party references are required is when establishing notability or if there's some controversial detail and a source is suspected of having a biased view. First party sources are perfectly fine when used to share a person's experiences or to share facts (which is what all of the Manzanar Committee refs are, as far as I can tell). I don't see a problem with using the Manzanar Committee refs how they are currently being used as none of the places they are used are dealing with anything controversial or disputed. We've removed all the iffy ones already. SandyGeorgia doesn't have a problem with them either. Perhaps you can add in some of these sources you seem so intent on having included? I don't have time to do that right now. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I am going to try to catch up here today. This is stalled, so perhaps needs to move to FARC to get more people to opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only one who seems to be stalled is Buidhe. He seems to be under the impression that a FA must use every reliable source that he's presented, and that without them, the article is not good enough. He also seems unwilling to put them in himself. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman argument, I never said that. What I did say is that FA articles must follow the FA criteria, which includes being well-researched and comprehensive. I have argued above that the article at present does not meet the criteria. (t · c) buidhe 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then make a list of what you think is missing, and which sources should be used for it. Just giving a huge list of possible resources and demanding that they be used before you'll support keeping the article as featured isn't helpful. Make very specific suggestions, along the lines of "This section (page numbers) in this book contains information not covered in the article". Without that, you're basically demanding that someone read many thousands of pages of books and then guess at what you think is missing. The only specific suggestion I've seen is a chapter in a single book I have but haven't had time to read yet (Farewell to Manzanar, I believe). Unless you can provide very specific issues that can be addressed, your argument for not keeping it as featured is flawed and not helpful in improving it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why you say that when in my last comment I said that the postwar section / historic site needs to be based on, or at least include, independent sources / reviews of the site (I won't repeat the full list), rather than just being based on involved sources as it is now. (t · c) buidhe 09:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Moving to get more input regarding this article's status wrt the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist First, I want to recognize the amount of work that has gone into improving the article. However, I don't believe that the current state of the article meets comprehensiveness or well-researched criteria. My primary concern as stated above is that the postwar section is mostly based on primary and affiliated sources, while neglecting secondary sources that would provide an independent perspective. Examples of information that could be added from these sources are more information about the community engagement process that led to the creation of the current exhibits[2] and what it is like to visit.[10.1080/13527250701228239] Another alternative would be concluding that the current historic site is a separate topic from the internment camp, and splitting off Manzanar National Historic Site. Hovever, if both aspects are covered in this article I do think independent sources are needed. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got here from the article itself, and I am not particularly familiar with the featured article criteria as they're widely applied (though of course I have looked at the criteria themselves as listed), but I do feel able to comment on some of the issues raised by User:Buidhe above. It is not uncommon, when doing humanities research about subjects that have not gotten a lot of attention, to find that the most accurate and detailed accounts are indeed by people with direct involvement. I have added information from the Public Historian article that Buidhe cites, but I note that the article is by Frank Hays, identified within the article as superintendent of the park. It's published in a highly reputable journal, which is good, but it may not be a coincidence that the richest sources of information would include people who work there. Thus, while it is true that more independent sources could be found (this LA Times story is OK--though, again, its primary source appears to be the late Mr. Hays)), they might not contribute that much in terms of comprehensiveness. On this basis I think it would be best to retain the article as featured. blameless 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think Nikkimaria and buidhe are not giving enough time for this article to be improved further. It's already an excellent article, and there is the one part that buidhe keeps harping on that could likely be improved further with some of the references he mentions above. However, he seems to be under the impression the article must be absolutely perfect in order to be kept as a featured article. No one is disputing any of the content in the article. Buidhe simply thinks one small section of it could be made better. Rather than delisting it and then having to go through all of the hassle to relist it, I think the FARC should be closed and we can move back to the FAR section to get some work done. Perhaps buidhe will even help out by adding in some of the sources he thinks should be used instead of requiring others to do the work for him. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, I've just expanded the article a bit more with additional references as well as cleaning up some of the existing references. I have at least one more article to use as a reference (the last of those buidhe kindly sent to me). This last one will add more details about life in the camp. If anyone can find some articles or books that can help with the "Manzanar Pilgrimage" section, that would be helpful. Of the 10 instances of citations in that section (8 if you discount those used multiple times), three are third party sources. Given the 130+ references in the article, I think having one section that has that many first/second party references is acceptable. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • on March 3, 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed House Resolution 543 into law (Pub.L. 102–248; 106 Stat. 40).
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) 4:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC) [3].

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

edit
Notified: Dweller, The Rambling Man, WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject Caribbean

In 2014, and then again a few weeks ago, notifications were left on the talk page about the quality of this article, but no significant action has been taken. The referencing is generally poor throughout the article, with a number of {{citation needed}} templates scattered about. There is also no prose summary at all for the ODI series. The article certainly fails 1b and 1c as it stands. Harrias talk 10:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs quite a lot of work and isn't currently FA quality. However, I think I could fix it relatively easily. Just not speedily because I'm about to take about 10 days wikibreak and because IRL I'm very busy with Covid-related work, which has impacted my editing for the last few months... and when I can edit, I do need to prioritise an existing FAC that's taking a lot of work to get through. I've not done any FAR work for a long time, so don't know how long these nominations can sit without being closed, but I'd ask for some flexibility on this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at it when I can. But the timing for this could have been much better. I only see two [citaiton needed] templates by the way... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; from the point of view of you both being busy right now, I hadn't actually realised it was your FA until after I had set this up, when I went to do the notifications. That said, I'm not convinced that this is easily fixable anyway. I can't believe that this series hasn't been covered in a range of books, so the sources present at the moment are unlikely to meet the requirement that the article be a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". This needs a fair bit of work just to meet the current GA criteria, let alone FA. Harrias talk 11:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a miserable summer for England and books tend to be spawned by good ones. Similarly, the Windies literature mostly focuses on their incredible peaks - the following winter, the Windies undeservedly beat England despite playing at home, and the decline followed. I'm not aware of any specialist books on this topic but that said if there is one, we can buy and reflect it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just going out on a limb, but Long Shot Summer: The Year of Four England Cricket Captains might cover it! Harrias talk 13:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AMAZING! I had no idea a book had been published. Seems to be well reviewed. I'll buy it. Thank you very much. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias do you have any other paper sources that we could use when updating this? My thoughts are perhaps for a legacy section or at least something which puts it into a more historical context if that's something we can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it all four England captains have autobiographies, but only Gooch's was published after this series. Viv has a biography from 2000; I don't think I own it, which is odd for a Somerset legend. I do have a few books about him, but I think they might all have come before this series too. I don't think there is much in Lister's Fire in Babylon. West Indian Summer: The Test Series of 1988 sounds promising, but it might be a picture book, rather than anything too useful. Harrias talk 15:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you an email with a little bit that might help. Harrias talk 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and replied, thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At FAR, we've been pretty flexible and have left articles open for an extended period (sometimes months) if there is active work being undertaken to save them. Just sayin' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we can do something in those timescales...! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment for now... the third (penultimate) paragraph of the description of the fourth Test says "Ambrose being hapless bowler..." – apart from the fact the word "the" is missing, what was so "hapless" about notifying the umpires of a waterlogging problem? This seems entirely the wrong word to use here. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a gambling man, I'd say that phase wasn't present in the FAC-accredited version. It will be mopped up when we get there, thanks! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment update for today: all three ODI's are now reliably summarised. I've also worked through the summaries of the first two (of five) Tests. And now I'm exhausted, so I'm calling it a day for today at least on that (probably). Once the Tests are covered, the "Aftermath" section needs tackling, which I'll hope that both Dweller and Harrias might be able to assist with. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment slow progress, completed the update on the third Test, two more to go. P.S. it would be helpful if someone could tell me whether the summaries for the ODIs and three Tests so far are sufficient so I know I'm in the right ballpark. If not I guess there'll be a shedload more work in a few weeks to turn what I'm doing into what is "expected" and that feels a little wasteful of my current time. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I referred to just the summary subsections of the two World Cup articles and to just the lead of the dedicated article with the differences between the article types in mind. I am not suggesting it imitates the entire article. CMD (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure I follow really. If the summaries of the ODIs and Tests 1 to 3 are suitable, that's all I'm concerned with right now. Sourcing the italics is trivial (it's all already sourced, just not explicitly). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reword, I think the current text is on the right track. I would suggest that for completeness the conditions of each test (and ODI) get a broader coverage, given the critical impact it can often have on test matches. Certain impacts are mentioned in the current text, for example "rain-affected second day", "afflicted by poor light", "a blocked drain resulted in the bowler's run-up area being waterlogged". These tidbits would be better served if a broader context of the overall conditions is given. CMD (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if sources cover the conditions, they can be added, but it's borderline minutiae in the wider context of this series. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And by all means feel free to help out. I've got a lot on my plate at the moment, this FAR was just about the last thing I needed, but I'm dutifully trying my best to get it more shipshape. Any assistance would be great. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the italic text is part of a template which includes a "report" parameter, and that cites all the content, including the italic text. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book is slightly delayed (knew I should have bought electronic edition!) - npw due to come tomorrow. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's already added some citations, which I fixed up, from that book. There have been literally no comments beyond the original nomination for this FAR which made a few general points, most of which seem to have been more than adequately addressed. Besides, there's no rush, as long as we make incremental progress in between other projects, this is just fine to keep running. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome some pointed comments about what needs fixing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you mean "actionable" rather than pointed but I agree! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used the book to beef up some of the dodgy prose about England and West Indies prospects before the series. Do let me know what else is needed, please. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the nominator is on holiday til 5 Sept; I scanned and saw some citations needed, and added one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yesterday, I spotted what the nominator may have still found issue with - the Aftermath section was bloated, OR-ish and lightly referenced. I started deleting, and added some cn tags. We'll fix it up and report back here when it's done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now 103 references, doubled in size overall and I think it's good. Thanks to all the collaborators. Can I propose we move to close this FAR? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, but it probably won't happen until the nominator returns from holiday, as we need to hear if they are satisfied. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content with that. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, to speed things along, you could leave messages (or ping, as you prefer) everyone who got involved in this review, to ask if they are now satisfied ... otherwise, Cas or DK or Nikki will end up having to do that later anyway. But in general terms, yes, anyone can enter a Close without FARC declaration if they believe issues have been addressed-- in that case, we don't move to the FARC "Keep or Delist" stage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further notes

edit
  • The Squads section is unreferenced, and feels odd being at the end of the article: wouldn't it be better to have each box in the relevant "Fooian team" section at the start of the article?
  • Generally, the Squads boxes are not great. The titles should use endashes rather than hyphens. What do the numbers represent? I think it would be more useful to a reader to give the name in full, rather than using initials.
  • There are a number of duplicate links throughout the article. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt will highlight them if you don't have a similar such tool.
  • Ref #12 does not support the suggestion that it was a "hard-fought" draw; it is merely a list of links.
  • "was unlikely to be repeated, given that the West Indies' only specialist spinner was Roger Harper, an off-break bowler." Unreferenced.
    • No idea how to reference this. Evidently true, but I'd need a source to say that not Harper was the only spinner in the squad and he was an off spinner and none of them say that because it would be odd. Leggies are so rare. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have cited Tony Cozier's Wisden article on the tour, which refers to Harper being the only specialist spinner, and Harper's Cricinfo profile to show him as an off-spinner - hopefully enough to support the statement? --Bcp67 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including a so-called "Blackwash"" This feels repetitive from the previous section. ("These two one-sided victories by the West Indies became known as "blackwashes"."
  • "..in "the crazy summer of 1988"." Provide inline attribution for the quote.
  • "Wisden was moved to comment.." Wisden is a book, and cannot be "moved to comment": Tony Cozier was.
  • "The significance of there being four captains in just five Test matches can better be understood with context. The captain of a cricket team performs a vital role. Unlike many other team sports, the captain makes crucial decisions regarding on-field tactics, and may also have an important say in team selection. Traditionally, captains of international teams are not changed frequently – for example, between 1977 and 1988 (comprising 104 Test matches), only seven different men captained England, yet there were four captains in just a few weeks in the summer of 1988." Unreferenced paragraph, and the tone feels a bit odd.
  • All the tables need table headers.
  • "..the selectors "did not seem to know where to turn, either for a new captain or for a settled team"." Provide inline attribution for the quote.
  • "The England team had not suffered such uncertainty since the West Indies tour of England in 1966, where the selectors chose 23 different players and three different captains (Colin Cowdrey, M. J. K. Smith and Brian Close) and England lost the five-Test series 3–1." This is an opinion, but is sourced to two statistical entries. Appears to be OR.
  • "defeating Somerset in May and Kent in June. The other nine first-class matches, and the First Test, were all drawn: Sussex, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Lancashire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Glamorgan, Nottinghamshire, and Essex. During the match against Gloucestershire at Bristol, immediately after the ODI series, Phil Simmons suffered a horrific injury, receiving a ball to the head from bowler David Lawrence. Not wearing a helmet, the blow caused his heart to stop and he had to be taken to hospital where he underwent emergency brain surgery. He missed the rest of the tour, but made a full recovery in time for the 1991 West Indies tour of England." This all looks like it is sourced to ref #30, but that only mentions the Gloucestershire match and Simmons injury, not the other matches.

Reviewed to the end of Statistical summary. Overall, the first few sections still looks like they need a thorough overhaul of the referencing; there is a fair bit of opinion being presented that is only referenced to statistics, rather than secondary sources. This was mostly a quick scan, rather than an in-depth look at these sections. They also are almost exclusively discussing Test cricket; it feels odd that very little background is presented for the ODI series: indeed, I don't think the West Indian team section mentions ODIs at all. We know they were the best Test team, how did they typically fare in ODIs? Who had been favourite for the ODI series? Harrias talk 10:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be able to spend much time on this now, so it'll be what it'll be. A shame all the effort expended appears wasted, but hey ho. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can do a bit more based on the 1989 edition of Wisden. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think this article still has scope for improvement, I am content that the issues I have raised have been dealt with. I am very busy off-wiki for various reasons at the moment, and am likely to be for a while yet. As such, I will be unable to take any further significant part in this discussion, however I am happy for this to be closed without the need for FARC. Harrias talk 10:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) [4].

Boshin War

edit
Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Monocrat, Enkyo2, Victuallers, Ernstkohl, Curly Turkey, WP Japan, WP MILHIST

Review section

edit

This article has a long-standing lack of citations for significant portions. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Month-old talk page notification got no bites: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: I'm seeing a contradiction in the FAR guidelines here. It does indeed say what you cite it as saying, but immediately below it also makes the apparently contradictory statement that The featured article removal coordinators [...] determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. I am not sure if there is a substantial difference, from the point of view of finding consensus in community discussions, between saying "I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards" and saying "Delist I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards". Is it possible the guideline you are quoting was written to apply to reviews of more recent FAs, where the notable gap between the standards of 2006 and the standards of 2020 is not also in play? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spirit of the thing is that, during FAR, we specify the problems and hope someone will address them. A Your "delist" in the FAR phase won't get the article delisted. Keep can happen without moving to FARC, but Delist cannot happen until/unless the article moves to FARC. In other words, unless the article is improved, you have one has to come back during the FARC phase to enter a Delist. No need to ping me, I have the FAR watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I was asking a hypothetical about an apparent contradiction in the instructions; I'm not the same editor who already cast a "delist" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a contradiction, but perhaps that could be taken up at WT:FAR rather than here. FAR is for listing things to be improved: one can say, "I don't think this article can be improved during a FAR", and then come back during FARC to !vote "Delist", if the article moves to FARC. (If you want, you can move this whole thing, my responses included, to WT:FAR.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section mostly relate to sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for citations for over a year. One statement tagged as dubious since January. DrKay (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DrKay: I removed the dubious tag as whoever placed it didn't bother to explain why they tagged it, and it's not immediately obvious from the tagging. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Why is the Japanese date of February 8 equivalent to March 1 in the Western calendar and are the dates in the article Japanese or Western?
      2. What does it mean to "invest" a Castle?
      3. Was Goryōkaku defended by 800 remaining men or besieged by 800 men?
      4. If Enomoto was determined to fight to the end, why did he send his code books to his opponent?
      • Trivial points that I've left because I don't like the alternatives personally: Parkes' should be Parkes's according to MOS:POSS; "summer of 1866" should be avoided according to MOS:SEASON. The quote marks within the quote marks of " 'as his equal in point of blood'." are probably unnecessary. I recommend: "as his equal in point of blood". DrKay (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DrKay: Answering in order:
          1. Likely due to Japan using the Lunar calendar at that time (I believe that was during the transition, or close to it). I don't know regarding the dates in the article as I didn't write it initially.
          2. Based on context within the article, I'm going to assume it is this meaning from Merriam-Webster: "[Middle French investir, from Old Italian investire, from Latin, to surround] : to surround with troops or ships so as to prevent escape or entry".
          3. I'm not sure as I didn't write that paragraph and I do not have access to that source.
          4. This is speculation based on bits of culture I've encountered over the years. I tried finding a source supporting the reasoning, but I wasn't able to. Basically, by sending the valuables to his enemy before defeat, he was placing a responsibility on his enemy to return those items to his family. If he had waited until being defeated, he could not have requested that due to no longer being on equal footing (as far as honor goes).
        • Trivial points:
          1. Fixed "Parkes'" to "Parkes's", even though it looks wrong to me.
          2. Re: "summer of 1866", I don't have access to that source, so I am uncomfortable making this change.
          3. Fixed the quotes issue.
        • Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 08:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not entirely happy, because I still suspect there is some confusion in the article between Western and Japanese dates, and I'm not convinced 'Naval Codes' is the best translation for whatever it was that Enomoto sent Kuroda. However, given the improvements and the lack of any definite fault, I am striking my delist comment. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold off on making a decision. The MilHist project was not notified of this discussion, and they are very active and have many experts who can help. I have notified them now, and made a list of sourcing issues needing addressing. Please see Talk:Boshin War#Paragraphs needing references for more details. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: Well, I missed those. I don't have time to review every notice given for every FAR. This just happened to come across my radar. I still think time should be given to allow every paragraph to be referenced. The descriptions above of the article's "long-standing lack of citations for significant portions" is inaccurate at best. There are only eight paragraphs that don't have citations, and most of those that do have multiple citations used. That's really not all that many to fix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe is still waiting for books, and will need an extended delay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: any update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't received all of the books yet. No idea why, though. They haven't yet shipped. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all of the items marked with "citation needed". Any others need work? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, Nihonjoe; I will look this weekend when I have time. Perhaps DrKay will revisit as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you still planning to look over things, SandyGeorgia, or have all the concerns been addressed? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Pinging due to no response for over two weeks. Have all the concerns been addressed? Is there anything else that needs to be done in order to retain the FA designation for the article? Thanks for your time! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the long delay, Nihonjoe; I have added a few cn tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added citations for all of those. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Please make sure that the books cited are sorted alphabetically
  • Be consistent in whether you use cite templates for books
  • For easier verification, give inline page indications for journal articles with long page ranges. In particular Ravina 2010.
  • What is the rationale behind embedding long quotations in the footnotes?

I may return to have a look at the prose. Eisfbnore (会話) 05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the corresponding Portuguese article pt:Guerra Boshin is an FA, but was formerly demoted, before being promoted again last year. Most of the discussion was about spelling and Aportuguesamento, yet some parts of that review might be of interest. Their article is also quite well-shaped and handsome, I have to say. FWIW Eisfbnore (会話) 06:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eisfbnore: Answering in order:
  1. They are in alphabetical order by author surname (which is standard).
  2. All of them use one of the citation templates.
  3. I don't have access to the Ravina article. Are there any others that need this?
  4. To provide context, I assume.
Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to Keep, @DrKay: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihonjoe: I've added a couple more cn tags. I also note that the formatting of citations and references is quite inconsistent - some cleanup needed there before this can be kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Unless you want to do some of it, you're going to have to wait a bit. I have some real life things that are taking up my time right now. I've already done a ton, and it would be great if others found some sources for the two citations needed and helped fix the refs formatting. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've cleaned up the refs and tagged a few that need page numbers or clarification. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on clearing up the citations that need page numbers. I'm not sure what to do about the ones that vaguely reference a museum exhibit (it's tagged for clarification). I'm fine with museum exhibits being cited, but there needs to be a date at least, and perhaps an archived link to their website or to a pamphlet or book from the exhibit. I'm waiting on a couple more books to arrive in order to fix the Keene reference and improve refs (perhaps even replace the museum refs). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the Keene reference that was missing page numbers, as well as the Evans and Peattie ref missing page numbers. Waiting on a a request for page numbers from someone who has access to the Polack book. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now have copies of the Polak reference, but it's in Japanese and French, so it will take me a few days to review them and find the pieces of information that need the page numbers. Outside of that, are there any other things that need to be fixed in this article? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced one Polak reference with a couple others. There is still one of the Polak references that I can't find in the pages sent to me. I'm trying to find any other source that says that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the "Ryozen Museum of History exhibit", all of the refs have been fixed and updated now. I can probably find refs to replace the five places this museum exhibit is used. We'll see. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) [6].

Chris Gragg

edit
Notified: Bagumba, Hires an editor, Chevvin, Ecleric, Therapyisgood, Seattle, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Arkansas, WikiProject University of Arkansas, WikiProject National Football League, ‎WikiProject College football
Tonystewart14 could you please notify the other WikiProjects listed on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This article was recently featured on the main page for the subject's 30th birthday, but reads like a promotion of him and his brother. Many trivial statistics and quotes that fail WP:UNDUE and FA criteria 1A and 1D. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson
  • The prose seems suboptimal and I've done some touching up in that regards, but that might be a) my own personal preferences and b) not fatal for FA purposes.
  • The Twitter announcement of his retirement is permissible per ABOUTSELF (especially since it's verified), but not "high-quality", so a better one should be used if found. Also, why is the archive in Korean? Hmmm...
  • The Combine performance is only a couple of sentences, so is not UNDUE in my opinion. It may or may not belong in the lead, I'll let others decide that.
  • The "Professional career" section is, however, full of cruft and is lean on actual statistics. Perhaps a TNTing might be in order.
Overall this is salvageable but does need some touching up. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba

Here are my comments left, which I left earlier at Talk:Chris_Gragg#FA_status:

  1. Overhyping combine results in the lead. There's no long-term notability from these.
    Has been toned down a bit. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The lead mentions too many trivial stats, and the numbers are anyways not that impressive. The lead does not need WP:INTEXT attribution to Twitter platform, and saying he "was listed as" a graduate assistant reads like an investigation report or draws doubt whether he really was an assistant.
    I disagree on the trivial statistics. Listing career statistics in the lead gives readers a quick cross-comparison between athletes for the scope of their careers. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In his case, they are not defining enough for the opening paragraph, if even the lead at all. A casual or non-football fan wouldn't know its significance (or lack thereof). He is not an all-time leader, nor are they near any traditional career milestones. It would be more insightful to state if he was a starter or a backup during his career.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2010 Sugar Bowl details are excessive
    Has been cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Excessive detail on 2011 LSU game
    Has been cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Trivial that he was first rookie to sign
    Agree, has been cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too much details on meaningless preseason games
    Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Excessive detail on brother Chris
    Cut. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of #2 resolved by John M Wolfson.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying I'll be able to save it, but I'll take a look at the article. @John M Wolfson: Regarding the tweet about his retirement, I think we may be stuck with it. I can't find anything about his retirement from any source, reliable or not. Neither the NFL website or pro-football-reference.com list his status as either a free agent or retired, so for now, his twitter account is all we have. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is very odd and suspect, IMO. We'll see how it goes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally nothing else on this. Therapyisgood (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can take a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon and prose issues

Full of jargon that is understandable only to US football people.

This is just random poking around ... I could go on ... I don't know what was going on with that FAC, but serious attention is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to fix

  • Prior to the 2011 season, Gragg replaced D. J. Williams, a first-string tight end who graduated in 2010. in what way?

Therapyisgood (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Bagumba, Tonystewart14, John M Wolfson, ready for a re-review. I've addressed all the comments above. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, TIG: a few days off for a series of real-life minor but irritating issues has me struggling to catch up. This is on my To Do List. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Converted from a wide receiver to a tight end? Because I had to go back to the previous section to find that he was recruited as a wide receiver. And then I had to guess what three slots meant ... there were three players for that position, and he became ... something like third-string ??? I sort of figured out that out by reading the next paragraph ... ???? Could we make this easier on the reader by getting all of the info in the same paragraph?
Clarified. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gragg made one catch in the contest for 16 yards
Reads like there was a contest for 16 yards. Gragg made one 16-yard catch in the contest ??
  • After the game, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) system, which averaged team positions in the Harris Interactive College Football Poll, the Coaches' Poll, and six computer rankings to list teams by their combined average position,[24] ranked Arkansas as the third-best team in the nation, behind the Louisiana State University Tigers and the Alabama Crimson Tide, with the former scheduled as the Razorbacks' next opponent.
This is what User:Tony1 called a snake. It needs to be decapitated. That is, there are too many clauses here to sort, and the whole thing needs rewriting.
  • When the Bills cut their roster to meet the NFL's 53-man roster rule, which, in 2013, required each team to have 53 players or less on their active roster by August 31, Gragg made the team.
53 is explained twice, in more detail than needed, and the sentence becomes a tangle or repeated use of roster and 53. How about something like:
  • When the Bills cut their roster to meet the NFL's 2013 53-man limit by August 31, Gragg made the team.

Something was really off at that FAC, as this is not a very inspiring article even after the writing is correctted, but I don't think much of interest can be added. After these corrections, I think we've spent enough time on it, it has already run on the main page, and it's decent enough now to avoid FARC. @Tonystewart14: An update from the nominator, who has not weighed in for a month, would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC I agree with the comment above; while this probably shouldn't have been promoted in the first place, I believe it has addressed my original concerns. TIG has done a good job with addressing prose, and I fixed the last neutrality issue by taking the "valuable utility man" comment out of the opening paragraph of the article while leaving it in the body. Overall, the article is much better than it was a month ago. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [7].

Ohio Wesleyan University

edit
Notified: LaSaltarella, BryanD, WP Higher education, WT Ohio

Review section

edit

This is a 2007 promotion whose main editor has been gone from Wikipedia for ten years. In the top 10 editors, there is no one who has touched the article in more than five years, and the associated WikiProject is defunct! In addition to the points raised on talk by Skdb on August 5, the article has not been updated and relies on very old figures and data. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no engagement, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The lead section has exactly 1 sentence covering the history of the institution, before diving right into admission marketing - the lead does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. There are several unsourced sentences in the text, all data about admissions is fairly dated in the "Profile" subsection (2006, 2007, 2010). "OWU also has a highly respected music department." is sourced... to this website, that says nothing about a music department. The prose is not FA-level, with short paragraphs everywhere. Does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No one has shown up to take on the serious issues that'd need to be resolved for this to remain at FA level, and my post initiating the process was over a month ago, so there's been ample time. The best path forward now is to delist. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [8].

Philosophy of mind

edit
Notified: Lacatosias, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Psychology

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is the oldest one in the template. I will quote talk page discussion:

The original FA for this article with its gold star was granted in 2006 over 10 years ago, and the lead editor is long retired from Wikipedia over 5 years ago. The original 2006 FA article was well-written, coherent, and useful for persons interested in a short and clear introduction to this subject matter. The current article has had numerous scattered and non-specific edits added by numerous editors over the years since then which do not appear very well-presented or even marginally organized; this has led to the current highly complex and overly long format for the article's outline. At some point since 2006, it appears that an attempt was made by some editors to synthesize an extensive east-meets-west version of this article with possible asides made concerning the usefulness of yoga. Would the article benefit from being returned to a non-peer reviewed status for re-development, or, perhaps the original FA version of the article from 2006 could be restored which did not make recommendations for the use of yoga. CodexJustin (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering that notice was given almost two years ago, and this article is still not at standard, it needs to go to FAR. It is 50% larger than the FA version (meaning a good amount of the text has not been vetted), has numerous lists and quote farms, and large swatches of uncited text, an enormous navbox chunked in to the lead, incorrect use of bolding, breach of naming with repeat of the title in section headings, poor use of summary style, cleanup needed at See also Further reading and External links, inconsistent citation formatting, in addition to the issues raised above. At FAR, the possibility of reverting to the featured version can be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I know nothing about the subject, so will be of limited use in improving the article. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the many unsourced blocks of text and at least two citations to books with page references, there are parts that look like OR at first blush. There is even too much to fix to make it pass a B-checklist. My two cents, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge on this topic is fairly limited, so I am not sure how much I can assist with this. Several of the later paragraphs read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. We should either restore the article to its 2006 state (which is unlikely) or demote it.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include organization, style, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, in two years no one has shown interest in fixing the issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no engagement, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I spot several issues with the article, many of which have already been mentioned above. But still, the article has several uncited blocks of text, random sentences scattered around ("See also the problem of other minds."), sometimes wanders into the realm of WP:ESSAY ("This semantic problem, of course, led to the famous..." or "Several groups are inspired by these advances."), bad writing ("In the field of near-death research, the following phenomenon, among others, occurs: For example, during some brain operations the brain is artificially and measurably deactivated.") and so on. Given the complexity of the subject and the fact that no one is willing to work on the article at this time (or for the past two years), it should be delisted since it does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC) [9].

Gilberto Silva

edit
Notified: GilbertoSilvaFan, Chensiyuan, WP Brazil sports, WP Bio sport, WP Football Aresnal

Review section

edit

This is a 2006 promotion with a signficant list of issues raised on talk that has gotten no response since May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review by RetiredDuke

The main issue I found in this article that led me to write the talk page FAR notice is that there are many citations that do not support the content they should.

Just as an example, "In his second season, he was moved by the manager Carlos Alberto Parreira from central defence to a defensive midfield role where he flourished. He scored three goals in the 2001 season and became a revelation in Brazilian club football." - The source [10], says only that he is "One of Brazilian football's biggest revelations last year after joining Atletico Mineiro from their smaller rivals America where he was raised. A mainly defensive midfielder but he has good technique and passing." So it does not mention being moved by the manager and flourishing in the new position. Or scoring 3 goals in 2001. There are many such examples in the talk page notice that Sandy has linked to. Basically, it's a problem of verification and also a lack of citations in many other places.

At the time, I only reviewed until the end of the third paragraph of the Arsenal section. That's not even half of the article and turned up all those inconsistencies. To add to the verification problem, I also find that the time Silva has spent in Panathinaikos, Grêmio and Atlético Mineiro is not sufficiently fleshed out in the article, especially when we compare those sections with the Arsenal section, that describes his every step in (sometimes excessive) detail. Similarly, his performance in the World Cup that Brazil won, where he "featured prominently" and that earned him a transfer to Arsenal is glossed out in the transition between clubs. Then, the "Outside football" section seems a bit weak, just a collection of interesting tidbits in short, stubby sentences. In my opinion, the article does not meet the FA criteria at the moment. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – Along with the issues raised above, there are a couple of sentences tagged as needed references, as well as a couple of untagged areas that appear to be missing cites. Overall, a good deal of work will be required to get this one back up to the FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC) [11].

Mario Vargas Llosa

edit
Notified: jbmurray, WikiProject Latin America, WikiProject Literature, WikiProject Peru

Review section

edit
On 16 May 2020, Eisfbnore commented:

This is a well-written article, on an interesting author. However, I think it could need some tender & loving care. There are MOS and accessibility issues with the long lists of works and awards, as well as low-quality sources, such as IMDb. His more recent history (2010s) is rather poorly presented, with lists of trivial and insignificant incidents. We also have some dead links and poorly formated references. This should be able to amend, although it necessitates editors familiar with the sources.

Alas, there have not been significant edits since then. I should add that "Awards and honors" section is mostly unsourced, and perhaps should be split off into another article. (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include style and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/September_2020&oldid=980493464"