Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2023

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC) [1].

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

edit
Notified: Mark Arsten, Mitch Ames, Philologia Sæculārēs, Skyeking, Bri, WP Death, WP Oregon, WP Organizations, WP Alternative views noticed on 2023-07-19

Review section

edit

As noted by Vaticidalprophet, this 2012 promotion suffers from tone, POV, and sourcing issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think this is really fixable within the FAR context; it's a very marginal group that mostly gets "look at this guy saying X" coverage, which is difficult to spin into a comprehensive article without playing word games with "comprehensive". The whole talk history is an insightful read. I'll quote my bulletpoints from there for an idea of the scope:
  • Significant coverage concerns. The "Ideology" section makes up a substantial proportion of the article (~700 words to a ~250 word lead and ~1000 word remainder across three sections), making the largest part of the article by weight an uncritical and uncontextualized summary of the group's positions. "Reception" is structured as to lump virtually all incorporated negative coverage in a single paragraph, pulls incredibly cherrypicked positive quotes from articles that in some cases (like the former) barely discuss the subject, and "rebuts" criticisms with quotes from the movement's founder.
  • Significant tone concerns. This mostly ties in and overlaps with the previous section -- the cherrypicking is particularly egregious -- but several examples stand out as especially tone-related, like the footnotes (A and B in particular) and the huge quotebox girding "Ideology".
  • Scope problems. The only (extremely outdated) estimates in the article for "how many people are actually associated with VHEMT" are a couple hundred people. The movement is (and is backed up by both included sources and more up-to-date ones) essentially a nom de guerre for Knight. This is shoved into the "Organization and promotion" section and quickly moved away from in favour of a self-promotional statement of "millions of people" -- Knight's guesstimate for "how many people are childfree"? The article tries very hard to present a mailing list as a mass movement, but it's disrupted by the actual numbers.
Vaticidalprophet 03:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I agree that this is a very tricky topic to write a FA on, and agree that cherrypicking and accuracy are major concerns. That said... just as a general principle for when covering fringe, disliked groups... there's something to be said for having a section that presents their beliefs standing on their own and as they see things. Doesn't apply to just VHEM, but also, like, some new form of astrology or superseded scientific theories or the like. Basically I'm saying that having something like an "Ideology" section isn't strictly a bad idea, even if secondary sources are dismissive of it. To use the example of superseded scientific theories - it's okay to have a section that's "Okay, here's how they thought it worked", and then another section with "And here's why almost nobody buys it anymore." (But all the other problems are pretty big and certainly worth a FAR.) SnowFire (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [2].

Lawrence Sullivan Ross

edit
Notified: user:BlueAg09, user:Karanacs, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Texas_A&M, Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_governors, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Military, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Politics_and_government, Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America 2023-07-03

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it largely relies on a single source, which has been described in multiple academic reviews as heavily biased and unscientific (see the relevant section on the talk page). This article presents a very one-sided and quite possibly ahistorical view of the subject. It was granted featured status about 15 years ago, when standards on Wikipedia were much lower. In short, the article does not meet the FA criteria 1c (well-researched) and 1d (neutral). Dylanvt (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help with the Civil War material a little bit, with the note that I don't have sources that cover quite all of that time frame and that focus on Ross or his unit.
My primary concern is that editors have apparently been cramming things into here over the years without regards to source-text integrity. Take for instance, this passage from the 2007 version - "Despite his illness, Ross never missed a day of duty, and in early 1864 he was promoted to brigadier general, becoming the ninth-youngest general officer of the Confederate Army.[Welsh][Benner]". Welsh supports not missing duty and states that his promotion was back-dated to December 1863, but doesn't say when it occurred. I assume Benner must support the ninth-youngest and the January 1864 date as Welsh says nothing on this. We now have "Despite his illness, Ross never missed a day of duty, and on December 21, 1863, he was promoted to brigadier general,[Handbook of Texas][Library file description we probably shouldn't use] becoming the ninth-youngest general officer of the Confederate Army.[Welsh][Benner]" So now Welsh is out of place looking like it's supporting a claim about ninth-youngest that it doesn't, and the not missing duty bit is completely divorced from its citation. Based on Welsh and the Warner source listed in the further reading, it appears that the December 21, 1863 is simply his date of rank for seniority purposes (it was very common for promotions to general officer in the American Civil War to have a "date of rank" that is earlier than when the promotion actually occurred for seniority purposes). Hog Farm Talk 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would reverting to the promoted version be a positive first step, and then consider what should be added from the interim? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria in that aspect, maybe, although the more I look at this the more I think the issues with Benner are fairly significant. Benner relies quite heavily on Ross's accounst of the Pease River incident, which have been debunked in later scholarship. Benner (but not our article) claims that Ross's retreat across the river at Hatchie Bridge was orderly, yet Peter Cozzens' The Darkest Days of the War notes that Ross had 100 men captured during the river crossing (p. 286). Both Benner and the article imply that Ross was unsupported after crossing the river, yet Ross's position was reinforced by a 550-man brigade during the ordeal (Cozzens p. 289). From what I can tell, Benner is a rather one-sided biography. Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree in that the article is not neutral or well researched. Numerous issues exist, one being the way Pease Ross is mentioned, "Pease was later given the choice to return to his people, he repeatedly declined and was raised by Ross." Benner and History.net, are both cited for this misleading statement. When the article was promoted in 2007, Benner was most frequently cited so reverting the page to that version might not be an improvement. The "Farming and early public service" section over-relies on Benner for much of the content. Most of which is unimportant. Many information included in the battle descriptions should be scrutinized. Some portions of the page should be removed. Benner is cited throughout and in every paragraph in most sections, it is too much. Aquabluetesla (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments from some spot checks:

  • I agree that the tone of the article is inappropriate - it presents this person as a hero, rather than the usual more detached and neutral language we prefer
  • "In March 1864, Ross's brigade fought against African American soldiers for the first time in the Battle of Yazoo City. After bitter fighting, the Confederates were victorious. During the surrender negotiations, the Union officer accused the Texans of murdering several captured African American soldiers. Ross claimed two of his men had likewise been killed after surrendering to Union troops." - the he-says, she-says type narrative here seems undesirable given the importance of this issue. Can something more conclusive be said?
  • "Beginning in May, the brigade endured 112 consecutive days of skirmishes, comprising 86 separate clashes with the Union forces. Though most of the skirmishes were small, by the end of the period, injuries and desertion had cut the regiment's strength " - was it a brigade or a regiment?
  • "Their last major military campaign was the Franklin-Nashville Campaign of November and December 1864. Ross and his men led the Confederate advance into Tennessee. Between the beginning of November and December 27, his men captured 550 prisoners, several hundred horses, and enough overcoats and blankets to survive the winter chill. Only 12 of Ross's men were killed, with 70 wounded and five captured" - this is just bizarre. The Franklin-Nashville Campaign was probably the biggest fiasco of the war for the Confederate forces, but this text presents it as a success. There's also the obvious question of why it's a good thing for this unit to have been reduced to such desperate straits that it needed to capture blankets to "survive" in what is being presented as a grand success.
  • From having reviewed a few articles on Texas A&M, I'd suggest that the material on this topic be closely scrutinised: the university seems to have an unusually elaborate mythology, with several Wikipedia editors over the years helping to perpetuate it here. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably ought to just move to FARC here. Pretty much the entire Pease River section needs rewritten with different sources. The Civil War material is also flawed, but to a lesser extent. Use of Benner is probably unavoidable for certain parts of the article, but that specific work has really been passed by the course of scholarship over the last several decades in a few ways. Hog Farm Talk 21:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this. As it stands the article does not meet our standards for featured status, and I don't see it being improved in the next couple days. Dylanvt (talk) Dylanvt (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [3].

Hydrochloric acid

edit
Notified: Wimvandorst, Apaugasma, Cacycle, Smokefoot, WikiProject Chemicals, talk page notice 2022-09-28

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review as it has loads of uncited text, vast amounts of missing information available online/print, underdeveloped lede, and short sections, which were all mentioned by Wretchskull in the talk page, but weren't addressed. Keres🌕Luna edits! 16:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this article in its current state fails FA criteria on many accounts. In 2021 I rewrote the history section, which before my arrival contained downright fringe claims (as many other history sections of chemical substances did at the time). That section is reliably sourced now, but somewhat unfocused and meandering in its exposition (it should also be moved down).
I am mentioning this because I will not be working on this article and will not be watching this FAR, but if someone would like to save the article from a delist and would like my help with the history section, they can ping me and I will try my best to improve the prose (do note though that I'm not a native speaker). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article currently fails the following FA criterias:
1a: The history section and the entire article needs some copyediting, as I am seeing some grammar mistakes. I also see some inconsistencies with the dialect of English its written in, the talk page states that it is written in American English, however, I see some British english words such as vapour.
1b: There are loads of new material and information available online/print, which isn't in the article yet. This has already been mentioned by Wretchskull.
1c: There are loads of uncited texts sporadically throughout the article.
2a: The lead section is way to short for the current article, and needs to be expanded. Keres🌕Luna edits! 00:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include source, structure, prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC) [4].

Cracker Barrel

edit
Notified: WT:FOOD, WT:COMPANIES, WT:TENN, User talk:WWB Too, User talk:CB JessicaM, User talk:Silver seren, User talk:Graham Beards, talk page notice 2023-07-14 and 2021-12-27

Review section

edit

To copy what I said on the talk page:

  • The "early company history" section feels like it could be fleshed out more. Only one paragraph covers the entirety of the 1960s-80s. Said section also hits a lot of vagueness. "Eventually" they got rid of gas stations. Okay, when? Did any other notable events happen early in the company's history? When was their 10th, 20th, 50th location? Any prototypes? Anything about that odd one in a mall in Cookeville? Surely there's more interesting stuff about the early years.
  • Far too many sentences follow the structure "in [year], X happened. In [year], Y happened." Also a lot of one-sentence paragraphs that could be integrated elsewhere.
  • "Fans" section seems unnecessary and could be integrated elsewhere.
  • "Leadership" section feels overly split up. "Executives" is only one sentence and could be combined elsewhere.
  • "Controversies" seems to be an WP:UNDUE catchall with a ton of one-sentence paragraphs about non-notable events. This section also seems to challenge the article's neutrality.
  • Many sources are incomplete, such as "CBRL 10-K", whatever that is. Also a couple of dead links.

These issues were raised two weeks ago on the talk page, with no response or attempt at fixing them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison can be made between the current article and what it was when it originally passed FAC. Some of the changes since then are clearly an improvement. Others are just irrelevant bloat that was never a part of the article in the first place, that "Fans" section included and the strangely worded Leadership section. I think a lot of the WP:UNDUE that's been added can just be stripped out and other parts drastically pared down to return it to a more consolidated state. What do you think? SilverserenC 02:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the "early company history" is woefully underdeveloped. It just skips straight from "first location" to "had a crapton of locations by the 90s" with a bunch of vague handwaves. There's also a lot of "In X, Y happened. In Z, A happened." type prose that needs to be redone. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, though from what I recollect from back then when we were building the article, there honestly wasn't much to put in that time period. Other than expanding, not much of note really happened to the company, they didn't start doing major partnerships and changes to their business and brand until later. SilverserenC 02:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a decade ago. Surely we can find more now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have been over a decade ago, but I don't understand how we allowed an UNDUE "Controversies" section in this FA, when everything in that section is either History, Policies, or something else. A new organization, TOC is needed, and there are stubby paras. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I remember, a controversies section was not wanted at the time when WWB and I were working on it and the material was integrated into other parts of the article. But the others at FAC and on the talk page claimed that that was an attempt to hide the controversies and reduce their significance within the article. SilverserenC 21:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you should be able to integrate them into the article now, as most of that is ancient history. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - issues mentioned by Sandy are non trivial and have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose, currency, neutrality and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/September_2023&oldid=1177873518"