Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rock Springs massacre/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 21: Line 21:
*'''Delist''' - would have to agree with the above commentators. I unfortunately don't have time to improve it, and there hasn't been much new scholarship since 2000 based on a cursory scan of Google Scholar and Google Books. A lot of the post 1970 sourcing in this article is what comes up in my searches. Sorry to disappoint. [[User:MSG17|MSG17]] ([[User talk:MSG17|talk]]) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' - would have to agree with the above commentators. I unfortunately don't have time to improve it, and there hasn't been much new scholarship since 2000 based on a cursory scan of Google Scholar and Google Books. A lot of the post 1970 sourcing in this article is what comes up in my searches. Sorry to disappoint. [[User:MSG17|MSG17]] ([[User talk:MSG17|talk]]) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' No major edits since November, concerns remain about updating sources. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delist''' No major edits since November, concerns remain about updating sources. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
{{FARClosed|delisted}} [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:17, 12 February 2022

Rock Springs massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Notified: IvoShandor, Quadell, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject China, WikiProject Death, WikiProject United States, 28 Nov

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it cites sources that are not high-quality RS. There are plenty of secondary sources on this incident, we should not be citing breaking news from 1885. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate for this to go to waste. I'll look into sourcing starting this weekend. MSG17 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe waste is not a good word, but the point is that it seems it can be saved but no one else is taking it up. MSG17 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All FARs are potentially saveable in my opinion, but this one will require more work to fix it up than some since a lot of the citations are not HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True... Haven't been able to do much with sourcing right now, but I'll see what I can get up to this evening and this week. MSG17 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]