Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2021

< 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) 6:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC) [1].

Leonhard Euler

edit
Notified: Borisblue, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Education, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Systems, WikiProject Music theory, diff for talk page notification April 4

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2006 and hasn't been evaluated since. Hog Farm notes on the talk page that "There's a good bit of uncited text, and the length of the further reading compared to the number of sources used has me concerned about "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"." (t · c) buidhe 04:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is by far better expanded than when he was nominated in 2006. I've noticed some uncertainties, which I try to address further on, but not necessarily to keep an FA. I just read the FA criteria a minute ago. I guess in prose the article needs some copy edit. The sources available in the article are I guess rather good. Specially on the bio in St. Petersburgh. But on math, I don't know how well they are used. I am not a math formula specialist, (yet, who knows?). Maybe also ping an editor on mathematics?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC Despite efforts there are no improvements ongoing, sourcing issues (uncited text, etc.) remain. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No improvements ongoing" is dubious; there have been over 50 individual edits to the article, many significant, and many involving sourcing, since the FAR opened. "There are no improvements ongoing" was stated only two days after the most recent previous improvement. FA reviewers have made no effort to identify problematic uncited material, or to distinguish between uncited material that is general background knowledge from uncited material that makes a specific claim and needs a citation. Merely stating "there's a good bit of uncited text" is too unspecific to be possible to address directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem not to notice that I made the comment 6 days ago. Actually I think that unsourced content is a perfectly specific issue with a straightforward fix. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • How could I not have noticed that when I specifically compared the date of your comment to the date of the most recent improvement prior to your comment? And in some cases it takes considerable effort to find the right sources, not because there is too little sourcing because there is too much. For instance, in searching for a source for the one-sentence link to Euler–Bernoulli beam theory, I found that Google Scholar claims to have 50,000 sources for the exact phrase "Euler-Bernoulli beam". Despite that, it might be more straightforward if the people complaining about things being unsourced would be more specific about which things, in a 67kb article, they think are inadequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Nikkimaria: WP:FARC states "An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review." I see nothing in this section that looks specific enough to count as a review for my taste. Surely a review means, you know, actual review, and not merely the creation of a review section and then passing a waiting period with no actual review forthcoming. I am concerned that (similarly to Buidhe's comment above, seemingly) FARC contributors may start making "delist" comments without paying any attention to the significant improvements made since the beginning of the FAR, or that despite these improvements the article will be viewed as lacking in some specific way and that (because such a problem was never discussed in the FAR) the delist comments will snowball before there is any opportunity to make further improvements. I have repeatedly quick-failed GA candidates for inadequate sourcing, but never without providing guidance to which parts of the article require sourcing and why. May I please have some feedback on whether the current sourcing is adequate, or if not on which specific points in the article need sourcing or better sourcing? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Hog Farm:. --JBL (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Paradise Chronicle so they can elaborate on their concerns. On the general question: I see and appreciate that there have been improvements made to the article since its nomination, and delisting is by no means a foregone conclusion at this point - if someone were to raise issues requiring edits and work is ongoing/planned to address those, we're happy to keep the nomination open longer to support that, and to eventually conclude the nomination in favour of retaining FA status once that is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, Nikkimaria, and Buidhe: - The uncited text seems to have been mostly addressed, so I'll go ahead and give it a bit of a look-through and leave some notes in the FARC section below. Hog Farm Talk 01:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the many edits by Eppstein, I guess the article has sure made a considerable improvement on the mathematics. On the bio part I have sourced several phrases and expanded it slightly as well. (Others, who have not been pinged have also worked on the article since). I might find a few phrases more to source but the main parts are sourced. The more I work on the article I see that Leonard Euler has sort of been really influential on mathematics and has qualified authors. I am sure the sources are already available in the article to keep it an FA and I guess Eppstein has done a good work in that regard.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's still a towering figure in mathematics. There's a reason for the "master of us all" monicker. That's part of what makes sourcing this article difficult work: he made such fundamental contributions to so many subjects that we are reduced to single-sentence summaries of topics that have entire books devoted to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF comments
  • "including its best-known result, the Euler–Lagrange equation." - stating that something is the "best-known" may need a citation for this.
  • Fluid dynamics is mentioned in the lead, but the word "fluid" only appears in the lead, some references, and a category (I don't know enough about fluid dynamics to determine where if its discussed under another name, please excuse my stupidity if it is) - is the sentence about inviscid flow the fluid dynamics stuff?
  • I'm trying to do a little c/e as I go along, although it wouldn't hurt to try to get someone to copy-edit this (stuff like "fathers" vs "father's"
  • "Euler's daring use of power series enabled him to solve the famous Basel problem in 1735" - unclear what "daring use" means here; it may be best to just drop the "daring"
  • "Euler has an extensive bibliography. His best-known books include:" - are there sources calling these the best-known works, or are these simply ones picked out by editors?
  • Grinstein & Lipsey needs the isbn, if applicable
  • Probably ought to include the publisher for the Eulogy by Fuss, as it's being hosted online with a few notes
  • "A. Ya. Yakovlev (1983). Leonhard Euler. M.: Prosvesheniye." - Is this a book? A paper? A journal article? Does this need page numbers?
  • Wanner & Hairer needs the isbn
  • Caldwell's largest known prime by year needs the publisher (University of Tennessee - Martin)
  • "Youschkevitch, A P (1970–1990). Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York." - needs page numbers, and it looks like this source is in multiple volumes, so we need the volume number]
  • Sources that do not appear to be in English such as "Gindikin, S.G., Гиндикин С. Г., МЦНМО, НМУ, 2001, с. 217." should generally say what language the source is in.

That's from a quick run-through, it looks like the hard part here will be cleaning up the sometimes-messy referencing format. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I've added the two isbn's, I hope you don't mind that I've struck them from your list (to save others confusion about what remains). --JBL (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's better bibliographic data for the Yakovlev reference: MR0735260 Yakovlev, A. Ya. Леонард Èй лер. (Russian) [Leonhard Euler] Люди Науки. [People of Science] "Prosveshchenie, Moscow, 1983. 80 pp. --JBL (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the Euler–Lagrange equation is the best-known result in the calculus of variations (it may be one of the most fundamental, but that's not the same thing, and an equation is not a result), so I reworded. One could plausibly justify "daring" for the Basel problem in terms of the way his solution works by handling a much more general problem, but I think better to just remove the editorialization, so I did that as well. Same for the "best-known works": I don't see why we need to argue how well they were known rather than just saying that this is a selection of his works. Maybe earlier years of FA reviewing were more focused on unnecessarily flowery language and less on justification of the adjectives and adverbs? Yakovlev reference updated per JBL's comment, including tagging it for its language. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After cutting off for the evening I've made many other improvements to the citations, but I think not everything discussed above. The Gindikin source (the last bullet above) is an odd case: it repeats the author's name twice instead of giving a title, and there was an English version of what turns out to be the same book (assuming the missing title is the obvious one with that publisher and year) which we should have been citing instead. Fixed now. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yakovlev is a book, probably pre-ISBN--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how I had formatted it from JBL's information. The MR review is not very complementary, calling it "conventional hagiography", complaining about its lack of insight into Euler's thoughts, and quibbling with many of its claims for priority and missing topics. What we're using it for seems unobjectionable (minor details of Euler's death) but I'm wondering if we need to be citing a non-English-language and not particularly scholarly work for this material, or whether a better source for the same material (perhaps one we're already using) exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with citing a Russian source (after all, Euler spent a considerable part of his caree in Saint Petersburg and is buried there), but this is an outreach edition, directed at a general audience, presumably wioth zero prior knowledge of math. Probably we can fins something more comprehensive.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Yakovlev book, from its review, is aimed at a high school and undergraduate student audience (probably general enough for this material). And I have nothing against other-language sources, when necessary. But for material that should be in many sources, I think it is better for our audience to pick an English-language source when there's a good one available. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fluid dynamics mention in the lead was already supported by a sentence about "inviscid flow" in the article — I mentioned "fluid dynamics" again there to make it easier for other readers to search from the lead for the matching concept later. Caldwell publisher added. The comment about the publisher of the eulogy by Fuss led me to discover that we had two different citations to this eulogy (one the original, the other translated); now merged. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, more references cleaned up, including the Youschkevitch one. I think that's the last of Hog Farm's issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking a lot better. I think there could be some minor formatting improvements on a few of the web sources at the end (mainly how to deal with citing the Euler Archive more consistently), but I think this is fairly close to this being kept. I hope to get to a full read-through soon. Hog Farm Talk 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments (HF)
  • " Euler is also widely considered to be the most prolific, as his collected works fill 92 volumes" - most prolific is only found in the lead, the body gives the differing figure of 60-80 volumes
  • The Laplace and Gauss quotes are only in the lead; material in the lead should generally also be in the body
  • Johann Hennert is only mentioned in the infobox
  • Stepan Rumovsky is only mentioned in the infobox
  • The association with Joseph-Louis Lagrange is only mentioned in the infobox, it seems to merit mention in the body, as well
  • "Paul was a friend of the Bernoulli family[11] was interested in mathematics and" - copy editing issues, needs either a comma or another word
  • "In 1720, with only thirteen years of age, he enrolled at the University of Basel" - isn't the more standard phrasing "at only thirteen years of age"
  • "while leaving the Russian navy" - shouldn't this be Russian Navy, as a proper noun?
  • "He lived for 25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles. In Berlin, he published the two works for which he would become most renowned: the Introductio in analysin infinitorum, a text on functions published in 1748, and the Institutiones calculi differentialis" - This whole thing is sourced to a 1787 work by Euler, I'm not sure that's going to be a particularly great source for 25 years in Berlin, 380 articles, or his two most renowned publications.
  • "which were later compiled into a best-selling volume entitled Letters of Euler on different Subjects in Natural Philosophy Addressed to a German Princess" - They had the concept of best-selling back then?
  • "Despite Euler's immense contribution to the Academy's prestige, and was also put forward as a candidate for its presidency by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Frederick II named himself as its president" - Something is off here grammatically solved?
  • "In 1760, with the Seven Years' War raging, Euler's farm in Charlottenburg was sacked by advancing Russian troops" - only mention of Charlottenburg in the whole article, it seems worthwhile to mention that he lived there
  • "Euler was featured on both the sixth and seventh series of the Swiss 10-franc banknote and on numerous Swiss, German, and Russian postage stamps. The asteroid 2002 Euler was named in his honour. He is also commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints on 24 May—he was a devout Christian (and believer in biblical inerrancy) who wrote apologetics and argued forcefully against the prominent atheists of his time" - Source is an 18th-century paper by Euler, which obviously doesn't support a modern asteroid name, modern banknotes, and a Lutheran holiday.
  • "The first collection of Euler's work was made by Paul Heinrich von Fuss, Euler's great-grandson and Nicolas Fuss's son, in 1862" - I'm not sure that's its really good sourcing to cite that Fuss's work was the first collection to Fuss's work itself.
  • " "Euler Archive Moves To MAA Website". digitaleditions.walsworthprintgroup.com. Retrieved 9 January 2020." - publisher should be Mathematical Association of America, not walsworthprintgroup.com.

This is looking a lot better, it should be just about ready to be kept once these are fixed. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added Rumovsky to the body (as a notable student of Euler in Berlin), but now he is only listed as the only notable student, if we can add more it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up the "Euler Archive Moves To MAA Website" reference and removed the "best-selling" description. XOR'easter (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a source for the 10Chf banknotes, and added one more student (Lexell).
  • and also for the Swiss Opera Omnia (Eulers Complete Works)
  • About the mention in the Lutheran calendar (I've seen this is only for the ELCA the case, The ELCA was established in 1988 and there I couldn't find anything as well. Per Wikipedia, the ELCA represents 1.4% of the US population. Might not be notable enough for a mention?)
  • Paul Heinrich von Fuss only published a few of his works. The Swedish and Swiss works seem more notable to me.
  • I addressed the Charlottenburg issue with source when he bought the house.
  • Russian Navy is solved
  • The Paul Bernoulli phrase I hope is solved as well
  • And the Frederick 2 issue I tried to solve (there I'd be glad for a second view)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bigger problem with the "first collection of Euler's work was made by Paul Heinrich von Fuss" claim, illustrative of why we should not be using this sort of source-for-itself: The Fuss 1862 paper was not really a "collection of Euler's work", so much as a collection of unpublished works that had (unlike hundreds of others) escaped posthumous publication. I found a published journal paper that details this and the rest of the history of publications of Euler's works (the one by Kleinert), added it to the article, and edited the article accordingly. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we remove the ELCA Lutheran Calendar mention? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to that. Doesn't seem very significant since it's only a minor subdenomination. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, and Paradise Chronicle: - Here's a handful of a few more comments.

  • "Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture" - this is sourced entirely to the works of Euler himself, secondary commentary is probably needed to really support some of the conclusions drawn here
  • The concern about primary sourcing for "He lived for 25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles. In Berlin, he published the two works for which he would become most renowned: the Introductio in analysin infinitorum, a text on functions published in 1748, and the Institutiones calculi differentialis" is still outstanding.

This is looking much better than when the FAR was opened. @Buidhe: - Do you have any additional comments here as original FAR nominator? Hog Farm Talk 00:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"25 years in Berlin, where he wrote over 380 articles" should be easy to source. "Most renowned" may be harder, though: he is very highly renowned among diverse communities of mathematicians for different things, so if you ask n of them for his most famous result or publication you might get n different answers. Can we phrase that part in a less opinionated way? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "most renowned" part. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source from an Euler colloquium in May 1983 edited by Eberhard Knobloch. I sourced the the 25 years, but the source in German didn't say the exact amount of the articles he wrote, just hundreds. So I used this expression. Additionally, I found a phrase on his religious beliefs, and another one for a short stay at the theological faculty in Basel. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: - As the original nominator, do you have any outstanding concerns with the article yet? I will note that my point above about the "Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs ... " is not fully addressed yet. Hog Farm Talk 04:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep—due to the massive sourcing improvements from David Eppstein and some other work by myself and Paradise Chronicle, this one seems largely back to standard as far as I can tell. Aza24 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: - I'd still like to see the original research issue in sourcing Much of what is known of Euler's religious beliefs can be deduced from his Letters to a German Princess and an earlier work, Rettung der Göttlichen Offenbahrung gegen die Einwürfe der Freygeister (Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers). These works show that Euler was a devout Christian who believed the Bible to be inspired; the Rettung was primarily an argument for the divine inspiration of scripture entirely to one of Euler's works be addressed, but once that gets fixed, I'll be at keep, I think too. Hog Farm Talk 01:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't see that one, changed to "leaning keep" for the time being. Aza24 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720

Let's get this FAR closed! Pinging the same editors pinged for HF's review above. If I missed someone please let me know: @David Eppstein, JayBeeEll, and Paradise Chronicle:

  • "he entered the Paris Academy Prize Problem competition" I think there should be a short half-sentence explaining what this competition is.
  • "Around this time Johann Bernoulli's two sons," Around what time?
  • "cut funding and caused other difficulties for Euler and his colleagues." What difficulties? This should be expanded.
  • "Conditions improved slightly after the death of Peter II," How long after Peter II's ascension did he pass away? This should be stated in the article so we know what year we are speaking of.
  • "Concerned about the continuing turmoil in Russia," What caused this turmoil in Russia? This should be specified in the article.
  • "Notable students of Euler in Berlin included Stepan Rumovsky, later considered as the first Russian astronomer." Does this need to be included in this article? This feels like WP:TRIVIA
  • "After several further misunderstandings Euler decided to leave Berlin in 1766." These further understandings should be described.
  • "At the university he was assisted by his student Anders Johan Lexell." Is this important to the article or is it WP:TRIVIA?

This takes me to "Contributions to mathematics and physics", which I will continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm much more interested in issues with the mathematics content than with the parts about his life story, but I added a little more about the Paris Academy prizes, with a source. It's not at all clear to me that "Paris Academy Prize Problem" is a proper noun phrase; the Paris Academy offered an annual prize, based on competing to solve a problem, but the prize would have been called something in French like le prix de l'académie de Paris and appears to be the one described under a different name at fr:Grand prix des sciences mathématiques. I don't think the competition for the prize of the academy, or the problem posed for the competition for the prize of the academy, would have had separate names. So anyway, I replaced Paris Academy Prize Problem by (non-italic) Paris Academy prize competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two sons of Bernoulli were active at the Academy since 1725.
And the phrase of his departure was followed by other misunderstandings so I adapted the phrase accordingly and moved it to the end of the Berlin section. Then the turmoils are worded differently as suspicious and censorship in the section of St.Petersburg, I've expanded a bit on it.
The question on Peter II death was not clear. I anyway added the year he passed away and added his successor Anna of Russia.
If Stepan Rumovsky is important, I don't know. Lexell I included to show the notability of the assistance he received after the deterioration of his eyesight.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Rumovsky can be removed from the article. I think it should be explicitly stated that Lexell assisted Euler because of Euler's eyesight. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David Eppstein and Paradise Chronicle for responding to my comments above so quickly. I continued my review below. For future responses, please comment under the bullet point you are addressing, similar to the format used in WP:FAC. This will help me keep the concerns organised. Please keep in mind that I am not a math person and have no specialty in this area, so many of my questions will seem dumb. I hope you will be patient with me.

  • For "Contributions to mathematics and physics": There's an article called Contributions of Leonhard Euler to mathematics, which is shorter than this section. Should some (most?) of the information in this section be moved to the contributions article?
    • I think a biography of a mathematician that removes most of the information about the mathematics they contributed is pointless. Why not write about some random 17th-century nobleman, instead, if you don't want to write about mathematics? Certainly such a move would make me lose all interest in contributing to this FAR and perhaps shift to recommending against continuation of its FA status. Perhaps the other article could be redirected to a section of this one, but that should be irrelevant to the FAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am glad that you are writing about mathematics: this is an under-represented topic at Wikipedia and needs knowledgeable editors to contribute. Euler is a biography article and in my opinion needs to be more easily assessable to a reader than an article explaining mathematical concepts. I believe this article should have an introduction and summary for each of Euler's contributions and the reader can click on a wikilink for more information. I think the "Graph theory" section does an excellent job with this because it introduces the Seven Bridges of Königsberg and formula regarding convex polyhedron without going into too much detail. I do not expect every section to be as short as Graph theory, but I am highlighting that section as an example of a good use of summary style. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fear you have been misled by the nature of the material. In graph theory, Euler made two baby steps, but they were important because they were the first steps. Still, our coverage of this is somewhat superficial, not even describing what a graph is or how the problem is transformed into a graph. On many other topics, Euler made giant steps, so many of them in so many areas that it is difficult to summarize them all. Our coverage is still necessarily and appropriately superficial, but to you it looks more technical because even summarizing them requires some technicality and because there are so many of them and they pile up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting of this section could use an expert. After determining what can be moved over to the contributions article, I suggest an expert copy-edit this section to merge smaller paragraphs and cut or split larger ones. For example, the first paragraph in the "Logic" section is too short, while the second paragraph is look long.
    • You know that paragraphs should be organized by logical topics, rather than by the aesthetic appearance of their line lengths, right? I split the second paragraph into one long one and another short one, so now we have three paragraphs, on three aspects to this topic: Euler's introduction of Euler diagrams, what they are, and how they are used nowadays. The other alternative would be to merge them all together into one big paragraph.
      • In WP:PARAGRAPH, it says that one-sentence paragraphs should be used sparingly. "Physics, astronomy, and engineering" and "Logic" has a couple of these short paragraphs. Can these paragraphs be merged or perhaps expanded to explain their significance?
  • The section often talks about Euler's important contributions, which seems POV. I recommend phrasing like this be removed; the reader can determine on their own that they are important contributions when they read about what he has actually done. The article can also talk about how his contributions are important (what they influenced, new ideas that were possible because of his discoveries, etc.) that show the reader that his contributions are important (which is better than telling the reader that his contributions are important).
    • This comment seems motivated by a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and one that is strangely contradictory to the comment above asking to remove most of the mathematics. Saying that important contributions are important, when reliable sources agree they are important, is not problematic. WP:NPOV does not require us to omit opinions, and state only what can be verified as mathematical fact; it only requires that, when we report opinions, we provide the mainstream of opinions and attribute them. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opinions do not have to be omitted. It's difficult for Wikipedia to maintain WP:WIKIVOICE with qualitative, opinionated statements. One solution is what I suggested above, another is to add the people who have said he is important to the prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After this section is fixed up, I will take another, more detailed look at it. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I suggest you leave the formatting and on what is important/POV etc. in mathematics to the editors on mathematics. Leonard Euler was one of the most influential personalities in mathematics, and this is important. The main issue at the beginning of the FAR was the sourcing and this one has been addressed. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: All FACs require a non-expert to review and comment on the formatting. Since an FAR is another look at the FA criteria, I think it's important that non-experts also comment on FARs, too. I encourage disagreement with my comments, accompanied by an explanation. This allows the FAR co-ords to determine why things are a certain way in the article and prevent articles from returning to FAR with concerns that have already been addressed here. I am not commenting on what I think is important to include, but instead suggesting that it could be summarized more effectively. While this article was brought to FAR for sourcing concerns, all FA criteria is examined in an FAR. I will ensure that the article complies with all FA criteria, as per my understanding of the criteria, before recommending that this "keep" its status. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, non-experts sure should comment on FAR but the formatting has received a lot of time. Besides mathematics is an exact science where there is little room for doubt if something is important/"POV" or not. In mathematics it is mostly not depending on a POV if something exists or not much less at Eulers involvement in mathematics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing comments:

  • "In 1757 he published an important set of equations for inviscid flow in fluid dynamics, that are now known as the Euler equations.[84]" I am concerned that this sentence says this set of equations is important, but it is cited to Euler's publication. Can another citation be added to this sentence that verifies that these equations are important?
    • Um. Google Scholar says there are approximately 250,000 (!) references on the Euler equations. Is it really necessary to pick one as representative here, and one that says something so banal as that they are "important"? Wouldn't our wikilink to that topic perform better as a way for readers to verify that information? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised by how short the Commemorations section is. I went to Euler (disambiguation) and found an uncited claim that AMS Euler is named for Euler. I am trying to track down a high-quality reliable source for this; does anyone have any ideas? Also, are there any ideas of other commemorations for Euler, perhaps statues, buildings named for him at universities, street names, or other computer software/mathematical products?
    • We have a separate List of things named after Leonhard Euler. Some random typeface named after him is too minor to list here, among the many many things named after him. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would be unusual is if anything in mathematics called "Euler" were not named after Leonhard but rather after Bob Euler of Lincoln, Nebraska instead. At any rate, one of the citations already in that article explicitly stated the source of the name, so re-using that gives a footnote for that (unremarkable) claim. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh my goodness, I did not realise how extensive this list it. Should List of things named after Leonhard Euler be hatnoted at the top of this section? I would be in favour of adding prose describing the things named for Euler. Maybe something like, "Several of Euler's contributions to mathematics, physics and music are named for him, such as [insert two or three of the most popular/most influential contributions here]. After his death, several objects and products were named in his honour including the 2002 Euler astroid, a toy called Euler's Disk, and the AMS Euler typeface for displaying mathematical equations." For the products, it doesn't have to be these three but I think those are pretty notable/interesting things named for him. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • MANY MANY of Euler's contributions to mathematics are named after him. They comprise much of the mathematical content of this article, and are appropriately described in brief in the article rather than merely listed as a handful of names of topics. There is a reason for the "master of us all" terminology. Your comments here give the impression that you still think he was just a middle-of-the-road mathematician for his time, rather than someone who is still a towering figure over many fields of mathematics today. That impression is leading you towards trying to minimize his mathematical accomplishments, a mistake for this particular article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • The most significant mathematical and scientific ones are detailed in the contributions section. A compromise might be to focus the commemorations section on non-mathematical or scientific topics; e.i. the things that are actually commemorating him, not derived from him. At any rates, List of things named after Leonhard Euler should probably be linked somewhere in here. Hog Farm Talk 20:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The works listed in "Bibliography" were formatted inconsistently. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I reformatted the bibliography. My changes included: removing ISBNs (as WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY says ISBNs might be unhelpful for works that have had multiple editions, which I suspect is the case here), putting the works in chronological order by first publication, removing explanations of what the publication is (as this should be explained in the other sections, where appropriate), and other formatting consistencies. I invite editors to take a look and add information where appropriate. Hopefully, book title translations to English can be cited and verified.
  • Was Letters to a German Princess originally published in English? If not, the article should have the original title first (In French I think?) then the English translation afterward.
  • Are the sources in "Further reading" high-quality sources? If so, they should be used in the article. If not, I recommend removing them because if a source is not good enough to be used in the article, I don't think Wikipedia should recommend that readers seek it out.
    • I already made a pass through this limiting the Further reading section to reliably published book-length sources primarily about Euler, so yes, they are high-quality sources. (I just removed one that was added yesterday that was not book-length.) It should not be necessary to use all such sources as references in the article; what is important is that we cover the material about the subject in a verifiable way, not that we make excuses to shoehorn-in references. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree - I looked at this earlier and thought it was fine. It's generally impossible to work in every single major work on a large-scale subject like this, and further reading can be used to list a few select works that were not included, but may be useful. I think the breadth of sourcing in this article is good. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incidentally, there is at least one book-length source that we are not listing here: Debnath's The Legacy of Leonhard Euler (Imperial College Press, 2010). According to the review at MR2572971 it is best avoided, so it is good that we are not using it as a reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand the purpose of removing explanations of what [a] publication is. To my eye, that just takes that section of the article more towards being a list and less like prose, making it less informative. Explaining what a publication is at the place where it is mentioned makes sense. XOR'easter (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, while it's probably against the MOS somewhere, a brief description of what the work is would be helpful to readers, provide that the description is free of original research. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am fine with a brief description of what the work is, as long as every work gets that description for consistency. I will note that many of these works are talked about in the article, so these should be as brief as possible. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm at keep now. There's still a bit left to do, but the issues do not seem to be major. I think this is pretty close to the FA criteria now, and the sourcing issues seem to have been resolved. Not perfect, but good enough. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 10 August 2021 (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) 3:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC) [2].

Florida Atlantic University

edit
Notified: User talk:KnightLago, all listed wikiprojects, notice from March 2021

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's talk page notice, there is substantial unsourced and outdated comment. I would also like to flag that there seems to be an abundance of information on student clubs and their procedures, which raises undue weight issues and also far too much of the information takes university website materials at face value Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Things I notice:
    • WP:Recentism in lead.
    • Uncited paragraphs in history section.
    • Image sandwiching.
    • Circular redirects, e.g. Florida Atlantic University College for Design and Social Inquiry
    • Outdated admissions data in academics section.
    • Primary sourcing for racial diversity ranking, which is controversial enough info it definitely needs secondary sourcing.
    • The university's two-story trading room simulator, located in the College of Business, provides hands-on financial education using 25 dual-monitor computers and can accommodate 50 people at one time. A second lab provides full audio/visual connectivity and 25 additional workstations. Promotional language.
    • Undue emphasis on Washington Monthly ranking and poor discussion of reputation beyond just rankings.
    • Failed verification of ref 82 in the "Port St. Lucie–Treasure Coast Campus" section (I'm guessing there are probably many others).
    • "All full-time freshmen are required to reside in university housing" isn't something that needs to be quoted since it's basic facts (see MOS:QUOTE).
    • Greek Life Housing task force with a 2010 ref almost surely needs updating.
    • Degrees and alumni count is uncited, as are several entries for specific alumni.
    • Lots of reference inconsistency (e.g. using "fau.edu" in some places).
    • No organization and administration section.
Overall, this will need a lot of cleanup to avoid delisting, both in terms of specific things and in terms of broader reworking to remove primary sourcing, promotionalism, etc. I concur with the nominator and with Hog Farm's points on the talk page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage, and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC) [3].

Toronto Raptors

edit
Notified: Chensiyuan, Johnny Au, Ergotelis123, Charlesaaronthompson, WP NBA, WP Canada, WP Sports, WP Basketball, 2021-04-06

Review section

edit

This 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since, and has accumulated uncited text and other issues, which isn't surprising, since the team has 6 division titles and a NBA championship since then. There's also some reference formatting issues, and dated text such as "Their television ratings, however, are considerably lower than other more established Toronto sports teams and most other sporting events aired on Canadian television" which is dated to a source from before the team went on the nice run mentioned above, so may no longer be accurate. Given that the team's best history of success is from after the last FA review, this probably needs a significant work-through. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sabbatino, Amchow78, Leventio, and Bagumba for more input. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hog Farm: Article hasn't had any citations added to it since May 27. Can you reconsider? Link20XX (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnny Au and Leventio: - Could we get an update on how this is progressing? Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies, I somewhat got caught up with other articles and work so I somewhat forgot about this. I fixed up some of the citations, though a large number of issues remain. I can continue to fix them up at a somewhat slowed pace. However in saying that, I'm unfamiliar with the FAR process (never participated in one)... So if there are constraints on time that limits how long the FAR can go for, I'd feel inclined to not hold the process back and agree with the article's move to FARC (unless theres another set of hands that can correct the issues quickly... many of the issues are honestly easy enough of a fix, just tedious). Leventio (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Leventio: - The only real time constraints for FAR is that the article should generally be getting fairly frequent work at FAR. If it's going to be October or later before this can get tuned up, it may be worth considering if its better to let it go now, and then work it back up to FAC-able state. The goal is for FAR to be an improvement process and to only be a delisting process as a last resort. So I guess it all comes down to time frame. If August or early September is when the work will be mostly done, then this should probably be kept here; if it's gonna be a longer time, it may be best to not keep the article in limbo. I'll support whichever route you think is best for this article. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I could probably finish fixing up the citation issues by late-August if no one else objects to leaving this up in FAR until than. Leventio (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I at least have no objection to that. I'd rather see stuff kept than delisted. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I could try to at least give some sources for the section named "Pandemic-shortened seasons and Tampa relocation." Other than that the remainder might be a challenge since I have never done Featured Articles. I've done 43 Featured lists and rescued one from demotion, but I have not done articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of those would be great. I would love to see the Raptors remain an FA, especially given that it won the NBA championship in 2019, and by extension, the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could actually help a little bit more on this article regarding adding citations as soon as I wrap up on my FLCs for the 93rd Academy Awards and the 56th Academy Awards. I do not plan to nominate any further lists for featured list promotion at least until December 12 when I plan to submit the accolades page of Dunkirk for FLC.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the time to get to this (apologies for giving reassurances that I could last month), and I don't see that changing for a week at least. With that in mind, I feel like I've held up this process long enough, and would support this article's move to FARC. Again apologies for holding things up. Leventio (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size Not necessarily a requirement for this to reach FA again, but the article is getting WP:TOOBIG, currently at 64K of readable prose. What makes sports team pages challenging is that there is a tendency among fans to add in-season minutiae that ideally belong in the team's dedicated season articles. Furthermore, the team page should only provide a macro view of its history, which shouldn't need much maintenance aside from historical events or important milestones. The micro changes from year to year are better dealt with summary style with a dedicated page like History of the Toronto Raptors, which exist for many other NBA teams, including GAs the Los Angeles Lakers, Houston Rockets and Portland Trail Blazers. Again, this isn't required for FA now, but would make it less likely we'll need to revisit the page in a year or two again.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, I guess - It seems to have largely tapered off here. While parts are much improved, the uniforms section still contains a decent amount of uncited text and I'm concerned that that same section has some excessive detail issue. Bagumba's concerns about length also need some discussion/consideration. Hog Farm Talk 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include length and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is for the better that the article be temporarily demoted to GA, then have some of the History section be moved to History of the Toronto Raptors (despite the fact that the Raptors are tied for being the second-newest NBA team with the Memphis Grizzlies (who were the Vancouver Grizzlies back then)), then we can decide if it deserves to be FA once more. It's getting too bloated to remain an FA for an article about a sports team. Two other Toronto-based sports teams have dedicated history articles: History of the Toronto Blue Jays and History of the Toronto Maple Leafs, though neither the Toronto Blue Jays nor the Toronto Maple Leafs articles have FA status at the time of this comment (they are B-class and GA, respectively). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Johnny Au FYI it is not possible to demote to GA. If demoted it will not have GA status. (Until nominated and passed at GAN). (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would lean towards delisting; although the article isn't in too bad shape the fixes needed may not be feasible in the FAR process. In addition to the issues identified above, I'm not sure press releases are high-quality reliable sources for the purpose of FAC. (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist History section needs a major trim, several sources are not reliable, and work seems to have stalled. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - This looks like a situation where delisting to allow work outside of the time pressures of FAR is going to be the best route to bringing this back to status one day. Hog Farm Talk 02:34, 20 September 2021 (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) 4:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [4].

Rugby World Cup

edit
Notified: WikiProject Rugby union

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced text and tables scattered throughout, areas which have not been kept up to date, and short paragraphs and proseline in several sections. I also have concerns about the depth of coverage, the article is quite short and some subsections are tables without any explanatory or contextual text. CMD (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've made some improvements, and there is still room for improvement, but I don't think I'll be able to spend much time on this article over the next few weeks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CUA 27: Are you interested in fixing this up when you have more time? If so, FAR co-ords are usually amenable to placing reviews on hold until editors can devote time to an article. Just post below when you think you can devote more time to this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opportunity and your patience. Realistically, it would be September before I’d be able to really dig into this. If you can wait until then, great; if not, I understand. CUA 27 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the opportunity, but I’m still short on free time these days and don’t expect to be able to turn to this in the near future. CUA 27 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2021 (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) 4:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [5].

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

edit
Notified: Every project that is listed; all the original writers have long retired; diff for talk page notification from April 2021

Review section

edit

The article has a fair few uncited comments, references to books without page numbers or really broad page ranges of 60+ pages. It also in many parts cites a UN Committee report. I don't think these can be used as UN reports are often loaded due to countries trying to make opposition countries look bad and the like Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There also appears to be some potential editorialising and SYTNH issues. Take for instance citation #5 which explains the schematics of "uprising" vs "revolution" by consulting few sources other than a dictionary. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a bit concerned based on some of hidden inline notes that appear in this article. There's notes like Does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph? A: (30 Oct 2009) the two references, paras 89 and 47, cover the last half of the paragraph. A citation on the ÁVH founding and the interior ministry is yet needed and Question: is this intended to be about the Community for Mutual Economic Assistance (that's a trade agreement) or the Warsaw Pact? As written no one will be able to find a citation and 30 Oct 2–9 - set this text "Austrian neutrality altered the calculus of cold war military planning as it geographically split the NATO Alliance from Geneva to Vienna, thus increasing Hungary's strategic importance to the Warsaw Pact." aside awaiting reference. Please reinstate text when the ref is found, this is an important part of the background of 56. There's also some stuff that's hidden that appears to be text removed to hidden notes because it lacked citations. The quoted notes above do not instill me with confidence about the sourcing here. Hog Farm Talk 01:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, weasel words, lacking page numbers and citation maintenance. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per issues noted by DrKay. While I don't think the UN reports are completely unusable, I am concerned that several parts rely very heavily on a UN report almost contemporaneous with the revolution. It wouldn't hurt to have an academic source (rather than an international report possibly fraught with Cold War rivalries) for material such as "Later that evening, Kádár called upon "the faithful fighters of the true cause of socialism" to come out of hiding and take up arms; however, Hungarian support did not materialise, and the fighting did not take on the character of an internally-divisive civil war, but rather, in the words of a United Nations report, that of "a well-equipped foreign army crushing by overwhelming force a national movement and eliminating the Government"". Hog Farm Talk 18:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist concerns about POV, editorializing, and verifiability have not been resolved during the FAR. (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 17 September 2021 (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) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [6].

Roman–Persian Wars

edit
Notified: Yannismarou as the FAC/GA nominator and ZxxZxxZ and burh as frequent editors, the projects listed on the talk page

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because some of the issues raised in March on the talk page - including uncited text and a rather heavy reliance on old/primary sources which may not comply with WP:WIAFA 1c - still exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy reliance on primary sources and somewhat outdated secondary sources is a major issue. It is a broad topic, so maybe improvement should begin from child articles (e.g. Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, Parthian war of Caracalla, etc. also in poor condition) --Z 07:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors shows a lot of the secondary sources are not linked to - so if they are still useful they should perhaps be moved to "further reading" Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (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) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [7].

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

edit
Notified: Amandajm, WP Visual arts, WP Vatican City, WP Christianity, WP Collections Care, Noticed by Sandy last November

Review section

edit

This older FA promotion contains substantial uncited text. I'm also concerned that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned, as it would seem logical for this article to include information on how these improvements are kept up. Hog Farm Talk 03:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately User:Amandajm, the main author is rarely around these days. But your concern "that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned" seems odd to me. What would these consist of? What would "keeping up" consist of? The general idea is surely that you now leave the fresco well alone for a century or more, no doubt monitoring the condition every so often - probably through binoculars - they won't want to put scaffolding up again in a hurry. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It looks like they have some ongoing things - looks like a decent overview. Because people are in there, there's always the little bits of contamination that comes from crowds, so they apparently do minor cleanings regularly and they have this tiny cherrypicker-type thing that they use to get to them. Special LED lighting has been installed that is less harmful to the painting. This is an extremely detailed journal article discussing to great depth a high-tech HVAC system that has been installed to keep temperature, CO2, and humidity where desired, and also mentions some sensors and diffusers used. Wall Street Journal has a piece (can't tell how detailed, as it's largely paywalled), but I'm not sure that WSJ is top source for art. There seems to be a little more, as well (including what looks like a second journal article on the HVAC system, of all things). While I don't think we should devote more than a paragraph to this topic, it looks like there's enough lower-profile ongoing maintenance to be at least worth mentioning. Hog Farm Talk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, I guess. Hopefully someone will pick this up later (don't have the experience with this subject to write at an FA level on this topic). Edits since FAR opened are mainly IAbot. Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2021 (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) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [8].

Flag of Armenia

edit
Notified: Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky, Zscout370, WP Armenia, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in late March

Review section

edit

This early 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since and needs work to meet the modern FA standards. There is uncited text in places, a few spot with MOS:SANDWICH issues, some of the sources (such as Flags of the World and Vexilla Mundi) are questionable, and there's material about symbolism in the lead that is not found in the body, suggesting that there should be a body section about symbolism of the flag. Hog Farm Talk 00:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Crzycheetah: - I see you've been able to do some good work on the sandwiching/image layout issues. Are you interested in doing some work on the sourcing issues? Hog Farm Talk 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue raised is Flag of the World being a questionable source according to Hog Farm.-Cheetah (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that a lot of the uncited text probably isn't so obvious as to not require a citation, per WP:FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Users' imaginations are irrelevant in featured article discussions.-Cheetah (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FACR is, which asks for citations for non-obvious material. Hog Farm Talk 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!-Cheetah (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sourcing, comprehensiveness and structure. For example, the content about the Artaxiad dynasty is not given a citation in the article and the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog. Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons: [9]. The article says the original three colors derive from the Lusignans, but the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia [1933] by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids, which is an earlier period. This early flag (if it existed) is not discussed in the article. The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion on commons for being unsourced: [10]. The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources. The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself and is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics. Parts of the article appear to miss key information: for example, in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the content about the Artaxiad dynasty" - It does not need a citation per WP:BLUE
    • "the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog" - Armenia is a poor country it either has governmental sites or personal blog sites. Wikipedia doesn't want everything to be cited by primary sources; thus, personal blogs are used.
    • "Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons" - Did you ask that person why he did that? I might as well remove that baseless tag.
    • "the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia [1933] by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids" - A typo by that blogger. You can clearly see the flag of Rubenids in that blog and it doesn't have any colors that the current flag has.
    • "The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion" - What does that have to do with this article?
    • "The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources" - See above, there aren't any other ones on the internet.
    • "The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself" - Of course, it is! It should not be sourced to the anthem of any country other than Armenia.
    • "is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics" - Do you think it should be removed?
    • "in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers" - It was Soviet Union, the information you're looking for doesn't exist.

--Cheetah (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2021 (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) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [13].

Night of the Long Knives

edit
Notified: Mcattell, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Politics, 30-06-2021

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sentences and paragraphs in the article, which is especially concerning because there is lots of academic literature on this subject. There are also sources that I am dubious about, including "Cook, Stan; Bender, Roger James (1994)." (self-published?) and the von Papen memoirs, the only source used to verify von Papen's actions. The "Further reading" section should be analysed and incorporated into the article, if appropriate. I am willing to conduct a more detailed review if someone is willing to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - uncited sentences, some uncited notes. Bender appears to have written heavily on Nazi uniforms, but seems to have been mainly self-published, and we're not citing him for uniform information anyway. I'm also concerned that sourcing "On June 17, 1934, conservative demands for Hitler to act came to a head when Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen," to von Papen's memoirs is bad sourcing, as stating that this was when things came to a head is either OR or using a weak, involved, source. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Breach of MOS:LEAD. Unsourced statements include 'his intemperate outburst... deepened the rift between them' and 'embarrassing display of independence'. Concerns over Cook and Bender. DrKay (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist with great reluctance. The issues here would be resolvable by someone with access to a few relevant sources, but given that this article's been in FARC for about a month and a half and there have literally been no edits to the article since June, it doesn't look like anyone's gonna step up and work on this. Hog Farm Talk 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no engagement, concerns remain. It looks like no one is stepping up to fix this. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2021 (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) 4:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC) [14].

Hispanic Americans in World War II

edit
Notified: User talk:Marine 69-71, WT:MILHIST, WT:USA FAR notice from Dec 2020

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks appropriate sourcing (many sources are not RS), POV due to boosterism and out of context for focusing on profiles of successful soldiers instead of a holistic picture Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is - There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic-American contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writing such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope will continue to deserve FA status. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marine 69-71: We aren't deleting the article, just discussing if it meets the FA criteria --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review - at minimum the sourcing. I've come across issues with use of RS in other articles like this (Military history of Puerto Rico being one), and a quick look at this one shows similar challenges (a Yahoo groups list being used as a source, for one example). I agree the subject is of value, but that value is undermined by the use of non-RS and potential POV issues. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some work on this based on the comments on the article's talk page. You can review here. One challenge with this article, as with some others, is you have to go to other Wiki pages to find the sourcing for sections that seem to have been copy and pasted, and often the sourcing on those pages is poor. The amount of work involved is higher than it might at first appear. Intothatdarkness 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but I've also discovered in many of these articles (both the main ones and often the linked individuals) that the sourcing is often suspect. You can't really go after one without looking at the other. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing does need some work. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to spot check, but the following sources probably aren't high-quality RS:
  • The (now broken-linked) Yahoo Groups page
  • Not familiar with Aerofiles, but have some doubts about this one
  • A World To Win describes itself as A World to Win is an international revolutionary group that is opposed to the capitalist political and economic system globally. We work with others to develop visions and strategies that can take humanity beyond capitalism. That's not a good source for biographical information about Manuel Llopis
  • ntlworld.com is someone's personal website
  • What is valorosos.com?
  • What makes neta.com relaible?
  • What's motorbooks.com?
  • The reliability of biography.com was hotly debated at RSN in 2018. If it engeders that much debate about relaibility, should we be using this in a FA? I'm not convinced we should.
  • What makes designshare.com a reliable source

And there's a couple other marginal ones I just didn't get around to bringing up. This needs considerable sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered that valorosos.com site on other articles like this one, and it's mainly a personal research site as far as I can tell. However, it is often possible to replace it (so long as it's information relating to the 65th Infantry Regiment) with the Center of Military history publication listed in the 'Further Reading' section (Honor and Fidelity: The 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea). I discovered this while trying to do similar work on the Military History of Puerto Rico article mentioned earlier. I also discovered with that article (and many of the associated ones relating to individuals) that cleaning these up is a major undertaking. You pretty much have to check every source, as things are often misattributed or pulled out of thin air. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog Farm Talk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I don't know at this point. Some are, but given the methodology used with this article pretty much every source has to be checked and reviewed both for RS status AND to make sure what's said in the article actually exists in the cited source. I hate to say it, but I've found instances where that is not the case. I think it might be better served moving to FARC. It suffers from the same issues found in Military history of Puerto Rico, and that had to move from FAR to FARC. Just my $.02 having worked on some of these and the linked articles (which often need to be reviewed at the same time for the same issues). Intothatdarkness 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, I guess. Needs a top-to-bottom sourcing check, and I still have questions about the scope with sections being more anecdotal stories than a unified topic. This would probably benefit more from work outside of the FAR constraints and then a new FAC once ready. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: When a reviewer working on the article suggests moving it to FARC, I tend to defer to their judgment. I am concerned that Intothatdarkness has found several instances where the article's prose is unverified by the sources they are cited to and this needs to be actively checked by editors with experience in this field. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started working through some of the sourcing issues, but it's slow going. And the question raised above still remains: the organization of the article. Right now it's much more a collection of anecdotal narratives about people...many of whom have articles of their own (some of which are problematic in terms of sourcing) which are essentially duplicated in this article. I'm sticking to trimming and source verification for now. Intothatdarkness 21:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the information in this article is duplicated in Military history of Puerto Rico, and the information there is actually better-sourced than what's here. This is especially true when you hit the unit information. Not sure how we want to approach that. Intothatdarkness 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My personal opinion is that this article would be better as a general concept article, rather than more focused on the anecdotes. As an example, the content like the part in Home front that says "Hispanic women were discouraged from working outside the home prior to World War II, even more than other American women.[5] During World War II, the broad changes in the role of women caused by a need for labor on the home front affected the role of Hispanic women,[5] who worked as secretaries and nurses, helped build airplanes,[103] made ammunition in factories, and worked in shipyards" is good overview content, but then it's unclear why the stories of Ledesma and Solis and Solis-Thomas are presented specifically. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree. This is especially true as so many of those anecdotes have articles of their own (which will likely need to be reviewed as well). As many of the general overview items are echoed in the World War II section of Military history of Puerto Rico it may be possible to fold some of that information into this article instead, or link appropriate sections from this one to that article. I've been trimming some of the anecdotal content down, but didn't want to get too aggressive until a broader consensus formed. Intothatdarkness 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Work has stalled for more than three weeks and I did a spotcheck of the section on the Pacific War. More than half the section is unsourced or had sources that did not align with the material. The Rodriguez profile has a few sentences that were barely even paraphrased, and that's before we even question the sources, many of which are hobby websites Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Intothatdarkness: - Do you think this can be overhauled within the course of a FAR, or should this be moved through and repaired outside of the FAR constraints? Hog Farm Talk 14:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it might be best repaired outside of FAR. The same thing happened with Military history of Puerto Rico, and I haven't had enough time to work on that article or this one to the extent they need. Given the sourcing work and additional style adjustments you identified, moving it outside FAR might be the best option. Then it could be reviewed again once it hits the standard. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist then, I guess. The sourcing concerns look like they'll need patient work. Hog Farm Talk 14:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Some sections are lists of people, rather than information of the group's involvement in WWII as a whole. These will need to be summarized and evaluated for their inclusion. A close paragraphing banner will need to be resolved as soon as possible. Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2021 (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) 6:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC) [16].

France national rugby union team

edit
Notified: User talk:Shudde, WT:FRANCE, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's original notice 'There is significant uncited text, it is unclear how the tables are cited, and the post-2010 stuff is very underdeveloped' Also note that the tournament record and the history and the coaching material overlaps, as the tournament record goes into detail in the game results in the tournaments and often in more detail than the history, and then the coaching section just repeats the notable results that occurred under the coach. There is a passing mention of the French style of play in the coaching section, but this is never expanded upon. There is no comment on any traditional French styles/strengths or evolution in playing style. Also, the Six Nations section just has an overall results count so one cannot tell when the team was doing well or poorly and the history section only mentions years when they won so one can't tell what happened in the other years and tell when they had ups/downs and/or the coach was fired etc. So the artilce doesn't appear comprehensive Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2021 (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) 6:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC) [17].

Ramón Emeterio Betances

edit
Notified: Caribbean H.Q., WikiProject Puerto Rico, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject France, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Journalism, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2020-09-21 2021-07-07

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs and short sections that need to be merged or deleted. Many citations are to Felix Ojeda Reyes's book and other sources should be sought out and used. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2021 (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_2021&oldid=1046332207"